The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. The facts charged concerning the administration of philophones among the facts charged of the case by which a mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal principles was intended (the facts charged in Paragraph 3 of the judgment of the original court) did not specify the date, time, place, and method of administration of philophones.

The defendant did not administer philophones, and did not deliver philophones to D.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and eight months of imprisonment, confiscation, additional collection of KRW 469,00) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. The purpose of Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which requires the establishment of specific elements of the facts charged, is to facilitate the exercise of the right of defense by specifying the scope of defense of the defendant. Thus, it is sufficient that the facts charged are stated to the extent that the specific elements of the crime are recognizable to the extent that it does not conflict with double prosecution or prescription. Thus, even if the date of the crime is not specified in the indictment, the statement does not go against the above extent, and in addition, if it is inevitable to indicate the time of the crime in light of the nature of the crime, and if it is deemed that there is no obstacle to the exercise of the defendant's right of defense, the contents of the indictment are not specified (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do4854, Jul. 24, 2008; 2010Do6274, Oct. 30, 2014).

In this case, the lower court held that “In the case of this case, the date and time of the scopon medication based on the result of the Defendant’s scopic appraisal shall be between September 26, 2018 and October 5, 2018.”