The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. The Defendant is not a narcotics handler.

From June 22, 2016 to July 1, 2016, the Defendant administered Metropopa (one philopon) in an undiscilable manner at a place where the quantity cannot be known, such as Daegu, racing, or Young-si, etc., among the Defendant: (a) administered the Metropopa (one philopon), which is a local mental medicine medicine, in which the quantity cannot be known.

2. Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion

A. The instant facts charged merely states the date and time of the crime, from June 22, 2016 to July 1, 2016, that is, the place and method of the crime are not specified, and thus, the judgment dismissing the prosecution ought to be rendered.

B. The Defendant did not have administered philophones as indicated in the facts charged of the instant case.

3. We examine whether the facts charged of this case are specified.

Article 254 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "The entry of a public prosecutor's office shall specify the time, place and method of the crime."

The purport of the law, which specifies the time, place, and method of the crime, is to limit the object of the trial to the court and facilitate the exercise of the defense right by specifying the scope of the defense of the defendant.

Therefore, even if the overall indication of the date, time, place, etc. of a crime is inevitable in light of the nature of a crime charged, a prosecutor shall, as far as possible, specify it according to the evidence at the time of prosecution, and in a case where the failure to reach this point substantially impedes the defendant’s exercise of his/her right to defense, it cannot be said that the indictment contains specific criminal facts as provided in Article 254(4) of the same Act (Supreme Court Decision 2000Do2119 Decided November 24, 200). The prosecutor, who is the prosecutor, takes the following measures: (a) the Defendant’s urine reaction from the Defendant’s urine taken on July 1, 2016, based on this.