The degree of criminal facts specified in the complaint

As the complainant reports a certain crime to an investigative agency and seeks the prosecution of the criminal, it is possible to specify what criminal facts the criminal facts are to be tried for the punishment of the criminal, and it does not necessarily require the complainant to point out in detail the date, time, place, and appearance of the criminal directly.

Article 241 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 84Do50 Delivered on March 27, 1984; 84Do1704 Delivered on October 23, 1984

Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor (Defendants)

Daegu District Court Decision 83No2512 delivered on April 26, 1984

All the judgment of the court below and the first instance are reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Daegu District Court.

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below affirmed the first instance judgment dismissing this case on the ground that the complainant's complaint and the investigator's statement of the same person in the process of handling administrative affairs by the judicial police officer of this case were written. According to each statement of the statement of this case, if it became final and conclusive, the defendant's statement that he wanted to punish all of the crimes except for the cross-conscepts (not the facts charged in this case) of 1983.7.31 and 8.7, but the crime of inter-conscepts is established by one sexual intercourse, and the crime of inter-conscepts can be established by one act of inter-conscepts, and the above comprehensive punishment intent alone cannot be deemed as legitimate accusation of each inter-conscepts in this case. However, if the complainant reported a certain criminal facts to an investigative agency to specify which criminal facts could have been tried by designating a criminal's punishment, and it does not need to specifically point out the date, time, place, and attitude of the crime directly.

However, according to the records, the defendant 1 was living together with the defendant 1 at the office of the non-indicted 1 until the date of release from detention, because the defendant 1 stated that the defendant 1's husband of the complainant and the non-indicted 1, the first executive officer submitted the Daegu Northern Police Station on August 11, 1983, "I will inform the defendant 1 of the fact that the defendant 1 were living together with the defendant and the non-indicted 1, the defendant 1 knew that the defendant 1 was guilty of the fact that the defendant 1 and the non-indicted 1 were guilty of the fact that the defendant 1 and the non-indicted 1 knew of the fact that the non-indicted 1 had been dismissed in addition to the facts that the defendant 1 and the non-indicted 1 were guilty of the facts that the defendant 1 and the non-indicted 1 had been dismissed, and thus, the court below did not specifically state the facts that were legitimate before and after the prosecution of the defendant 1 and the non-indicted 1, the prosecutor's office and the defendant 6.

Therefore, all the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance are reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Shin Jong-sung (Presiding Justice)