마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Summary of Grounds for Appeal
In light of the special characteristics of drug cases, the facts charged in the instant case specify the date and time of the crime as the shortest period based on the false testimony and the statement of the person who provided false information, and specified the place of the crime to the extent that it is possible to distinguish territorial jurisdiction based on the location of the country where the telephone was sent to the cell phone used by the Defendant, so the facts charged were specified to the extent that it does not cause any impediment to the Defendant
The judgment of the court below which dismissed the prosecution of this case on the ground that it was unspecified in the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the specification of the facts charged.
Judgment
Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides, “The facts constituting the crime charged shall be stated clearly by specifying the time, date, place, and method of a crime.” The purpose of Article 254(4) is to ensure the efficiency and speed of a trial by limiting the object of a trial and to facilitate the exercise of defense by specifying the scope of defense and to facilitate the exercise of defense by the defendant. As such, the prosecutor, as a prosecutor, shall state specific facts that constitute the elements of the crime, so that the facts can be
This is also applicable to a statement on the facts charged of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc., the purpose of which is to administer narcotics without a narcotics handler.
(see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do3801, Jun. 9, 2011). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, we examine whether the instant facts charged were specified.
The facts charged of the instant case reveal that “The Defendant, even if he is not a narcotics handler, administered the psychotropic drug in a way of injection using a disposable injection machine for psychotropic drugs, or in a way of drinking water such as coffee, etc.” on September 2012, 2012.
However, the defendant.