The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for eight years.

For a single-use divers seized.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Article 3-4 of the Judgment of the court below

(a)beo. (f)the point of selling textphones, 4-a.

Since the fact of medication does not specify the date, time, place, method, etc., the indictment procedure for the above part is invalid in violation of the provisions of the law.

misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles

(a)the importation of textphones, the importation of textphones, the second person;

(a) and (b)

point of purchase of philophones, third-party

(a)beo. (f)the point of selling textphones, 4-a.

In the absence of evidence to prove this, the fact of medication is erroneous and acceptable.

The sentence of imprisonment (10 years of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

Since the defendant was not involved in the import, sale, and purchase of philophones as stated in the judgment of the court below, the collection of corresponding part is unfair.

Judgment

Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the facts charged are specified by specifying the time, date, place, and method of a crime (Article 254(4)). The purport of the Act demanding 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 it is recognizable from other facts by comprehensively taking account of these elements, and even if the date, time, place, method, etc. of a crime are not specified in the indictment, it does not go against the purport of the Act allowing the specification of the facts charged, and it does not go against the purport of the Act allowing the specification of the facts charged, in light of the nature of the crime charged, if general indication is inevitable, and

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do4854 Decided July 24, 2008, and Supreme Court Decision 2010Do4671 Decided August 26, 2010). Article 3 of the holding of the lower judgment

(a)to examine the sale of philophones, which has been duly adopted and examined by the original court;