The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the purport of the Criminal Procedure Act allowing the court to specify the facts charged by specifying the time and place of the crime when the facts charged are stated is to limit the scope of the trial against the court and to facilitate the exercise of the defense right by specifying the scope of the defense against

Therefore, the facts charged should be recorded to the extent that the facts constituting the constituent elements can be distinguished from other facts by integrating these elements.

However, even if the indictment does not specifically indicate the date, place, method, etc. of the crime, if it is not contrary to the purport of the law that specifies the facts charged and its general indication is unavoidable in light of the nature of the crime charged, the indictment cannot be deemed unlawful since its contents are not specified.

In particular, even if an inclusive crime does not specify individual acts constituting a part of the crime, if it is clearly stated the time and period of the crime, method of the crime, the victim or the other party, the number of crimes, and the total amount of damages, etc., the crime is specified (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2002Do807, Jun. 20, 2002). The summary of the facts charged as to the Defendant’s violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act against the Defendant, without registering the financial investment business, runs the discretionary investment business by acquiring and disposing of the financial investment instruments, etc., after receiving the Defendant’s total amount of KRW 489.3 billion from January 2005 to June 20, 2010, by receiving the Defendant’s investment decision on the financial investment instruments, etc. as an investment deposit, and this is a continuous and repeated act of the Defendant by a single intent.