beta
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental statements in the grounds of appeal not timely filed).
1. As to the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Indecent Acts by force against minors under the age of 13)
A. The facts charged should be stated clearly by specifying the date, time, place, and method of a crime (Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act). The date and time of a crime should be stated to the extent that it does not conflict with double prosecution or prescription, and the purport of the law requiring the specification of the facts charged by such elements is to facilitate the exercise of the defendant’s right to defense. As such, the facts charged ought to be comprehensively stated to the extent that the facts constituting the elements constituting the crime are distinguishable from other facts.
Therefore, even if the date, time, place, etc. of a crime are not specified in the indictment, it is not against the above degree, and it is inevitable to generally indicate it in light of the nature of the crime charged, and if it seems that there is no hindrance to the defendant's exercise of his right to defense, the contents of the indictment are not specified.
It cannot be seen (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do2939, Oct. 11, 2002). The lower court determined that the indictment cannot be deemed unlawful on the grounds that the charges were not specified in this part of the facts charged, on the grounds that the circumstances stated in its reasoning, such as that the date and time of the crime and the method of the crime cannot be indicated generally to a certain extent, given the nature of the crime concerning this part of the facts charged, fall under a case where the time and method of the crime cannot be indicated generally
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the aforementioned legal principles and the records, including the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the specification of the facts charged, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal
(b)the investigative agency;