beta
Text
The prosecution of this case is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the facts charged was sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Narcotics Control Act at the Changwon District Court on April 10, 2013, and the execution of the sentence was terminated at the Tongwon Detention House on August 27, 2013. On August 12, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to one year and eight months of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective deadly weapon, etc.) at the Changwon District Court and the said judgment became final and conclusive on the same day.
On February 27, 2015, from around March 16, 2015 to around March 16, 2015, the Defendant administered the Mebamin (one philoopon) volume of Mebamin (one philoopon), which is a local mental medicine, in an irregular manner.
2. Determination
A. Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that “The entry of a public prosecutor’s office should be clearly stated in the time, date, place, and method of the crime.”
The purport of the provision, ", by limiting the object of a trial, aims at facilitating the efficiency and speed of trial and at the same time to facilitate the defendant's exercise of his/her right to defend by specifying the scope of defense. As such, a prosecutor must comprehensively consider the three specific elements and describe specific facts that constitute the elements of a crime that enables identification of the other facts. This also applies to a description on the facts of a violation of the Narcotics Control Act, which includes the purchase and administration of narcotics, even though a person dealing with narcotics is not a person dealing with narcotics, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do9835, Oct. 14, 2010). Since a single drug medication crime is often conducted without witness in a remote space where the crime is committed and it is very difficult to secure relevant evidence, it is necessary to fully consider the characteristics of the relevant crime in determining whether the crime is specific.
However, even though the defendant denies the administration of philophones and does not have obvious evidence.