The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the facts charged was specified in the instant case.

It is difficult to see that the Defendant was guilty of the Defendant, even though he did not intentionally administered phiphones as stated in the judgment below, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination 1 as to the assertion that the facts charged are not specified) An entry in the public prosecution room shall specify the time, date, place, and method of a crime (Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act). The purport of the law requiring the specification of the facts charged is to facilitate the exercise of the defendant’s right to defense. As such, it is sufficient that the facts constituting the elements of the charges are stated to the extent that the facts constituting the elements of the crime are recognizable from other facts, and even if the time, place, method, etc. of a crime are not clearly stated in the indictment, it does not go against the purport of the law that specifies the facts charged, and it does not go against the purport of the law that allows the specification of the facts charged, in light of the nature of the crimes charged, and if it is inevitable to indicate the facts in general in light of the nature

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do4671, Aug. 26, 2010), the prosecutor stated the date and time of crime on the basis of the data on the date and time of gathering the urine from which the response to training the phiphone was taken and the period during which the philophone was administered after the administration of the philophones, as “the space between April 8, 2016 and April 15, 2016” and the Defendant’s statement about the place where the crime was resided or visited during the above period and the cell phone transmission details used by the Defendant, as far as possible, stated the place of crime as “the place below Busan.”