The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and four months.

Seized evidence 1 through 4: Provided, That evidence.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Paragraphs (1) and (3) of the judgment of the court below by the defendant of mistake of facts

(a) through (e);

There is no fact that he provided B with philophones without compensation or administered philophones at the residence of B, such as described in the paragraph.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment, confiscation, and collection KRW 600,000) is too unreasonable.

On the other hand, the defendant and his/her defense counsel are set forth in the summary of the oral argument dated May 10, 2019.

(a)bed;

As the date and time of the crime was not specified, the prosecution on the above part was asserted that the procedure for prosecution is invalid as it violated the provisions of the law.

However, this is not a legitimate reason for appeal because it was asserted after the deadline for submitting the grounds for appeal.

Furthermore, as examined below, the above argument is without merit.

The facts charged should be stated clearly by specifying the date and time, place, and method of a crime. As such, the purport of the law demanding the specification of the facts charged is to facilitate the exercise of the defendant’s right to defense. As such, the facts charged is sufficient to state the facts constituting the elements of a crime to the extent that they can be identified from different facts by integrating these elements, and even if the date, time, place, method, etc. of a crime are not clearly stated in the indictment, it does not go against the purport of the law allowing the specification of the facts charged, and if it is inevitable to state general facts in light of the nature of the facts charged, and it does not interfere with the defendant’s exercise

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do4671, Aug. 26, 2010). According to the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the prosecutor, based on the B’s statement that the Defendant voluntarily surrenders to the effect that the philophone was administered with the Defendant, as well as the third party’

(a)bed;

To the extent possible, the date and time of the crime in relation to the administration of philophones has been specified.