beta
Text
The prosecution of this case is dismissed.
Reasons
1. 【Criminal Records, etc.】 The Defendant, at the Seoul East Eastern District Court on April 19, 2017, was sentenced to two years of suspension of execution in October due to a violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc., and the judgment became final and conclusive on April 27, 2017, during the period of suspension of execution.
【Criminal Facts】 The Defendant is not a person handling narcotics.
The defendant from February 26, 2018 to the same year.
4. Until June 2, 200, the Plaintiff administered the psychotropic drugs in an influorous manner in a non-fluorious manner at an influorial area of Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.
2. Determination
A. The only evidence corresponding to the facts charged in the instant case is the request for appraisal by the National Scientific Investigation Agency for the appraisal, and according to this, it is true that the facts charged in the instant case against the Defendant is suspected of being guilty.
However, the purport of Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides, “The statement of facts charged shall be made to specify the facts by specifying the time, place, and method of a crime.” The purpose of Article 254(4) is to ensure the efficiency and prompt trial by limiting the object of the trial, and at the same time to facilitate the exercise of the defendant’s right to defense by specifying the scope of defense. As such, the prosecutor must include specific facts that constitute the elements of the crime in order to distinguish facts from other facts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do1765, Dec. 9, 2005). The date and time of the crime described in the above facts charged is based on the appraisal result only on the result of testing conducted by the defendant on the mother of the defendant, which led to the training of philopon, if the philop was detected from the mother of the length thereof, all the quantity and method of administration are stated, and the place stated in the medication alone cannot be seen as a specific fact that meets the requirements of Article 4(2).