A. The facts charged in this case should be dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the procedure for indictment is invalid as it is not possible to exercise the defendant's right to defense, since the date and place of the crime are generally stated, and the date and place of the crime are not specified to the extent possible.

The facts charged in this case constitute a case where the defendant had already been convicted and thus is subject to a judgment of acquittal in accordance with Article 326 subparagraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Article 3(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the Defendant shall not use philophones or directly administer philograms to E as stated in the judgment below.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant is erroneous in misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The sentence (three million won of fine) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The purport of Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which states the date, time, place, and method of a crime, to specify the facts charged, is to limit the scope of the trial to the court and facilitate the exercise of the defense right by specifying the scope of the defense against the defendant. As such, there is an inevitable case where a general indication as to the date, place, etc. of the crime is indicated in light of the nature of the crime charged.

However, the prosecutor must specify it as far as possible based on the evidence at the time of prosecution, and in a case where the failure to do so substantially impedes the exercise of the defendant's right to defense, it cannot be said that the indictment containing the specific facts of crime under Article 254 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act

In addition, due to the nature of the crime related to psychotropic drugs, Mesphere ingredients in the defendant's hair.