All appeals by the defendant are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual errors and misapprehension of legal principles) of the facts charged in this case does not specify the date, time, place, method of medication, etc. of the Defendant’s Metepia (hereinafter “Mephones”), and thus, it cannot be deemed that the relevant facts charged were specified.

In addition, the defendant did not have administered philophones by himself.

From the appraisal of the defendant's side, the reaction of philophone training was caused by B's dystroph, mixed with philophones, thereby leaving the defendant cryp.

(C) The court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. As to the unspecified argument in the facts charged, Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act requires that the facts should be specified by specifying the time, place, and method of the crime (Article 254(4)). The purport of the law requiring the specification of the facts charged is to facilitate the exercise of the defendant’s right to defense. As such, it is sufficient that the facts charged are stated to the extent that the facts constituting the elements of the crime are recognizable to other facts by comprehensively taking account of these elements, and even if the date, time, place, method, etc. of the crime are not specified in the indictment, it does not go against the purport of the law requiring the specification of the facts charged, and if it is inevitable in light of the nature of the facts charged, and it does not interfere with the defendant’s right to defense, the contents of the indictment cannot be deemed not to have been specified (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do2694, Jun. 14, 2007; 208Do4854, Jul. 24, 2008).