[1] The purpose of the law requiring entry of ‘day', ‘place', and ‘manner' as a specific method of the facts charged

[2] The case holding that the facts charged in relation to the date of crime cannot be deemed to have been specified since the end of July 2003

[1] Article 254 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act / [2] Article 254 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 89Do112 delivered on June 13, 1989 (Gong1989,103) Supreme Court Decision 94Do1853 delivered on September 23, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2907) Supreme Court Decision 2004Do7421 Delivered on December 23, 2004

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Kim Shin-soo

Busan High Court Decision 2004No970 delivered on March 16, 2005

The appeal shall be dismissed. One hundred and twenty days out of the number of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The "date" of the crime referred to in Article 254 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which provides the specific method of the facts charged, requires a statement to the extent that it does not conflict with double prosecution or prescription, and the "place" requires a statement to the extent that it does not conflict with territorial jurisdiction, and the " method" requires three specific elements of the facts charged. The purport of the law requiring the above three specific elements of the facts charged is to limit the scope of defense of the defendant and facilitate defense by limiting the scope of defense of the defendant. Thus, the facts charged shall be stated to the extent that it is possible to distinguish the specific facts that meet the above three specific elements of the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 89Do112, Jun. 13, 1989; 94Do1853, Sept. 23, 199; 204Do7421, Dec. 23, 2004).

Examining these legal principles in light of the records, although the facts charged of this case was written as "after the second half of July 2003 on the date and time of the crime, it was based on the premise that the victim "before the second half of July 23, 2003" was "before the second half of July 27, 2003." The defendant also exercised his right of defense. The remaining places and methods of the crime are written in detail, so it is possible to distinguish from other facts of crime, and thereby, it cannot be deemed that there was an obstacle to the exercise of the right of defense because the scope of the defendant's defense is not limited. Thus, the argument that the facts charged was not specified is without merit.

2. Examining the relevant evidence in light of the records, we affirm the court below's finding the defendant guilty of the crime in violation of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection of Victims (13 years of age, minor rape, etc.). There is no error of law such as misconception of facts or incomplete hearing due to violation of the rules of evidence. The ground of appeal

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and part of the detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-dam (Presiding Justice)