The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

No. 1 of the seized evidence shall be charged to the defendant.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. Defendant 1) Defendant 1 was guilty of the facts charged in this case, on the ground that the indictment procedure is invalid in violation of the provisions of law because the time and place of medication is not specified. However, the judgment of the court below which concluded otherwise is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the specification of the facts charged, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The judgment of the court below which found Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case by misunderstanding the fact that there was no fact that a phiphone was administered like the facts charged.

3) Even if there were no impacts unfair, the lower court’s sentencing (one hundred months of imprisonment, confiscation, and collection) is too unreasonable. B. The prosecutor’s (the sentencing of the lower court that was so unfair) is too uneased and unreasonable.

Judgment

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion that the facts charged are unspecified in the facts charged, it is necessary to specify the facts by specifying the time, date, place, and method of the 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, it is sufficient that the facts charged are stated to the extent that the facts constituting the crime are distinguishable from other facts by comprehensively taking account of these elements, and even if the date, place, method, etc. of the crime are not specified 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 the general indication is inevitable in light of the nature

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do4671, Aug. 26, 2010). According to the foregoing legal doctrine, according to the health stand and the records of this case, the prosecutor took place the Defendant’s urine training reaction.