(a) Details of the crime in the case of complaint;

(b) The effect of a complaint specifying the period for committing the crime;

A. The accusation is a declaration of intent that the complainant reported a certain crime to an investigative agency and seeks the punishment of the criminal, so the accusation must be specified, but the specific degree of the accusation can only determine which criminal facts are to be specifically specified and which the complainant's intent is to seek the punishment of the criminal, and it does not need to specify the criminal facts by clearly stating the date and time, place, method, etc. of the accusation.

B. With respect to a complaint with a specified period for the crime, the complaint shall be deemed to be an expression of intent to seek punishment for all the crimes committed during the specified period, unless there are extenuating circumstances to deem that the complainant has the intention not to punish the offender for a specific crime during such specified period.

Article 223 of the Criminal Procedure Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 84Do1704 delivered on October 23, 1984

Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor

Suwon District Court Decision 86No1256 delivered on February 16, 1987

The dismissed portion of the judgment below shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division.

The appeal against the remaining part (not guilty part) is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

With respect to the rejection of prosecution,

Since a complainant reports a certain crime to an investigative agency and seeks the punishment of a criminal, such criminal fact must be specified. However, the specific degree of the complainant's intent is sufficient to determine which criminal fact is sought by specifically designating the criminal fact, and it does not require the complainant to specify the criminal fact by specifically stating the date, time, place, method, etc. of the crime in detail. In the case of a complaint for which the period of the crime is specified, unless there are circumstances to deem that the complainant has an intention not to punish the criminal for any specific crime committed during the specified period, it shall be reasonable to deem that the complaint is an expression of intent to seek the punishment of all the crimes committed during the specified period (see Supreme Court Decision 85Do1213, Jul. 23, 1985).

In light of the records, the contents of the complaint or the statement of the complainant, which is the first accusation of this case, are difficult to specify the scope or contents of the complaint. However, the complaint's additional statement dated August 7, 1986, which was 3 times before and after the date of July 1980, the defendant et al. al. was sent to the front entrance of the 2000 would not be 4 times every five years from the beginning of July 1980 to the end of May 28, 1986, and it was stated that the defendant et al. was 108,000,0000,0000 won and 18,000 won and 18,000 won and 19,000 won and 18,000 won and 20,000 won and 18,000 won and 19,000 won and 18,000 won and 18,000 won, respectively.

Thus, the court below's decision to dismiss public prosecution on the ground that there was no filing of a complaint, despite the fact that there was a complaint about the inter-conception in the part of the court below located in the Busan Franchi, not more than 22:00 on November 1, 1983 among the facts charged in this case, it is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the filing of a complaint, and it is reasonable to discuss it.

With respect to the acquittal:

Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below in comparison with the records, we cannot find that there is no violation of the rules of evidence selection and fact finding by the court below, and even if there was a liverion between the beginning of July 1980 and the end of May 28, 1986, or between the speaker and the defendant on April 20, 1985 and several times on a day before and after the end of April 20, 1985, it cannot be said that there was a liverion in Egrhical No. 13, Egr., the facts charged of this case, around April 20, 1985.

Therefore, this paper is without merit.

Therefore, the dismissed part of the judgment of the court below is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division, and the remaining part of the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)