Cases concerning the degree of specification of the facts charged in comprehensive one crime of violation of Article 2 (1) 2 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes

In a case where it is evident that the act of acquiring punishment, which was manufactured and processed by the prosecutor, does not meet the standard of the defendant several times, constitutes a comprehensive crime of violation of Article 2 (1) 2 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes, even if each act constituting part of the crime is not specifically specified, if it is manufactured and processed without meeting the standard of the entire crime and the standard of the alteration, the total quantity of the alteration acquired for sale and the value thereof, and it is specified in the facts charged, and it constitutes a comprehensive crime of acquiring punishment for sale for a prolonged period of time, so long as the annual retail price of a certain year exceeds 50,000 won as provided in Article 2 (1) 2 of the same Act, even if it falls short of the above amount, it cannot be viewed that the total amount of the punishment and the total value of the punishment, which was acquired for sale, can not be altered for the purpose of altering the total amount of the punishment and the total value thereof, as it does not meet the standard of the total amount of the punishment and the total value of the punishment for sale.

Article 2(1)2 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes; Article 7(4) of the Food Sanitation Act; Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 79Do2962 Delivered on March 25, 1980

Defendant

Attorney Ha Young-young, Counsel for defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 93No1624 delivered on October 22, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal by defense counsel (if the supplemental appellate brief was not timely filed, to the extent of supplement) are examined as follows.

According to the evidence adopted by the court of first instance maintained by the court below, from May 28, 1990 to November 21, 1992, the defendant found that he purchased the above punishment amounting to 27,919k market price of 96,419,50 won for the purpose of sale, and that he acquired the above punishment amount from 10.3 years after he altered the above punishment amount from 190 to 20.3 years to 10.3 years after he altered the examination protocol of the defendant as to the interrogation of the defendant, and mixing it with 50:5 years to 19.2 years to 10.3 years to 19.3 years to 29 years to 19.3 years to 19.3 years to 19.4 billion won to 297.4 billion won to 19.4 billion won to 19.6 billion won to 19.4 billion won to 19.6 billion won to 3 years to 19.16.47.17.477.27

In addition, in this case where the facts charged and applicable provisions of the indictment against the defendant and the defendant are changed according to the prosecutor's application for changes in the indictment, the prosecutor only stated the summary of the changes in the indictment in accordance with the changed indictment, and there was no examination of the defendant, etc. in the first instance court or the court below. In light of the records, the statement about the changes in the indictment is concluded without questioning the defendant, etc. as alleged by the prosecutor, but the defendant or his defense counsel who was arbitrationd in this case did not raise any objection to the above changes in the indictment, and the defendant's defense counsel did not have any opportunity to make a statement to the defendant, and the defendant's defense counsel did not have any opportunity to make a statement. Thus, as in the indictment of this case after the changes in the indictment of this case, the first instance court's indictment also stated that there was no examination on the changed indictment of the defendant and the defendant, etc., and thus, there was no violation of law by mixing the first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's first trial's first trial's second trial's final trial's judgment's final trial's judgment's judgment's judgment's judgment's judgment's judgment's judgment's judgment's judgment's judgment's determination.

In addition, according to the indictment, it is clear that the above act of acquiring the punishment by the defendant over several times during the above period constitutes a blanket one crime of violation of Article 2 (1) 2 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes. In this case, even if individual acts constituting part of the crime are not specifically specified, the total amount of the punishment and its value acquired for the purpose of sale can be specified in the indictment if it is clearly stated that the total amount of the punishment acquired for the purpose of sale and its value are not exceeded 3 years since subparagraph 1 of Article 75 of the Food Sanitation Act provides that the above act of acquiring the punishment is not consistent with the standards and specifications stipulated in Article 7 (1) and (2) of the same Act, and that the above act of acquiring it constitutes an annual sale of foods or additives for the purpose of sale or alteration beyond 1,000,000 won or more than 2,000 won per annum 7,000 won per annum 1,000,000 won per annum or more.

All arguments are without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)