The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for nine months.

20,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the contents of the indictment cannot be deemed to have been specified solely on the facts charged in the instant case, the indictment procedure is null and void in violation of the provisions of law.

B. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are the so-called “work” from D, F, etc. (referring to having the Defendant drink alcoholic beverages or beverages mixed with philophones) which led to the reaction of training philophones, and there was no intentional administration of philophones.

Although there is no credibility of D’s statement that administered philophones with the Defendant, the lower court found the Defendant guilty as evidence, it erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment, additional collection 200,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As stated in the facts charged regarding an unspecified assertion of the facts charged, it is necessary to specify the facts by specifying the time, date, place, and method of a crime (Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act). The purport of the law demanding the specification of the facts charged is to facilitate the Defendant’s exercise of the Defendant’s right to defense. As such, the facts charged are sufficient to state the facts constituting the crime in question to the extent that it is distinguishable from other facts by comprehensively taking account of these elements, and even if the date, place, method, etc. of a crime are not explicitly stated in the indictment, it does not go against the purport of the law allowing the specification of the facts charged, in light of the nature of the crime charged, and if it is inevitable to state the facts charged in general in light of

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do4671, Aug. 26, 2010). According to the record of the instant case, the prosecutor, according to the following: (a) the results of the crypology and the crypology test from which the crypon training was conducted; (b) the date and time of the extraction of hair and cryp