[1] The legislative intent of Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act and the specific extent of the facts charged

[2] The case holding that the facts charged cannot be deemed to be specified since the date and place of administration, the quantity and method of administration, etc. of the Mesamina as stated in the facts charged are not specified

[1] Article 254 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act / [2] Article 254 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 200Do3082 Decided October 27, 2000 (Gong2000Ha, 2483) Supreme Court Decision 2005Do1765 Decided May 13, 2005, Supreme Court Decision 2005Do1014 Decided June 24, 2005, Supreme Court Decision 2006Do391 Decided April 28, 2006, Supreme Court Decision 2005Do3777 Decided June 15, 2006 (Gong2006Ha, 1389)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Jeon Young-young

Incheon District Court Decision 2007No2591 Decided December 27, 2007

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Incheon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides, “The entry of facts constituting the crime shall be stated in order to specify the facts by specifying the time, place, and method of a crime.” The purpose of the provision is to ensure the efficiency and prompt trial by limiting the object of the trial and to facilitate the exercise of the defendant’s right to defense by specifying the scope of defense at the same time. Thus, even if an overall indication on the time, place, etc. of a crime is unavoidable in light of the nature of the crime charged, a prosecutor shall specify the facts by the evidence as far as possible or at the time of the amendment of the indictment, and where the failure to do so causes de facto impediment to the exercise of the defendant’s right to defense, it cannot be said that there is an indictment stating the specific facts constituting the crime as stipulated in Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Do3082, Oct. 27, 200; 200Do2119, Nov. 24, 20002>

However, the facts charged of the instant case are as follows: “The Defendant administered the psychotropic drugs by means of injection or drinking at the Incheon, Seocheon-si, Mine-si, Sincheon-si, Sacheon-si, or China, etc. from April 2007 to June 2007.” Thus, in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the fact that the date, time, place, and method of medication are stated to the same extent as above cannot be deemed as a concrete fact that meets the requirements of Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Thus, the public prosecution of the instant case cannot be said to have been specified in the facts charged.

Thus, this case constitutes a case where the indictment procedure is null and void in violation of the provisions of the law, and the court below should have sentenced the dismissal of prosecution as to this case.

Nevertheless, the court below affirmed the court below's finding guilty of the facts charged on the premise that the facts charged in this case were specified. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the specification of facts charged, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal on this point is with merit.

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)