A. The degree of specification of facts charged

B. The specification of the facts charged in the blanket crime

C. In a case where a part of the victim was prosecuted as a person who was dissatisfying the name, whether the fact-finding court may make a claim as to relative status precedent as the ground of appeal even though it did

A. The facts charged in the indictment are required to limit the scope of the trial against the court and facilitate the exercise of the right of defense by specifying the scope of the defendant's defense. Thus, it is desirable to clearly specify the facts that are possible, such as the date, time, place, method, etc. of the crime, but as long as it is necessary, it may interfere with the institution and maintenance of the prosecution. Thus, the date and time of the crime may not conflict with the time of double prosecution or prescription, the place is sufficient to determine the territorial jurisdiction of the court, and the method is sufficient to state to the extent that the elements of the crime are specified.

B. In a single comprehensive crime, even though it is not specifically specified for each act forming part of the crime, if the whole crime was committed, the time, termination period, method, frequency of the crime, the sum of the amount of damage, and the victim or the other party are specified, it is specified in the crime. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that all victims of the crime were not specified in the crime of larceny, which is a single comprehensive crime.

C. In a case where a part of the victim was prosecuted as a person who was not a party to his name, since the defendant did not have asserted as to relative status precedent at the fact-finding court, he cannot be deemed as the ground for

A.B. Article 254(c) of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 344(Article 328) of the Criminal Act, Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 91Do2085 delivered on October 25, 1991 (Gong1991, 2878), 91Do2495 delivered on December 24, 1991 (Gong1992, 722), 92Do256 delivered on April 24, 1992 (Gong1992, 174) B. Supreme Court Decision 88Do1580 delivered on November 8, 198 (Gong198, 1553), 89Do570 delivered on May 23, 198 (Gong1989, 1037), 90Do8333 delivered on June 26, 190 (Gong1990, 1639)

A

Defendant

Attorney B

Daegu High Court Decision 92No98 delivered on May 27, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The number of detention days after an appeal shall be included in the original sentence 59 days.

As to the grounds of appeal by defense counsel

In sum, the instant facts charged cannot be determined as to the authenticity of the establishment of the crime because the date and place of the crime, and the victim’s identity cannot be ascertained. As such, the lower court’s purport is that the crime should be determined by exercising the right to name or ex officio, and whether or not the victim is a relative with the Defendant.

Since the facts charged in the indictment are required to limit the object of trial to the court and to facilitate the exercise of the right of defense by specifying the scope of defense against the defendant, it is desirable to clearly specify the facts, such as the date, time, place, method, etc. of the crime. However, as long as it is necessary, it may interfere with the institution and maintenance of the prosecution more strictly. Thus, the date and time of the crime may not conflict with double prosecution or prescription; the place is sufficient to indicate territorial jurisdiction; and in the method, it is sufficient to specify the elements of the crime. In particular, in the case of a single comprehensive crime, such as this case, even if it is not specifically specified with regard to each act constituting part of the crime, the whole period and time of the crime, method of the crime, frequency of the crime, or the sum of damages, and the facts charged are specified, and thus, it cannot be deemed that all victims of the crime of larceny of this case, which is an inclusive crime, have not been specified; see Supreme Court Decision 200Do18488, Apr. 18, 19888; 2098Do197. 198.

In addition, in this case where some victims were prosecuted as a person in secret name, the defendant did not have asserted as to relative status precedent at the fact-finding court, and thus, he cannot be viewed as the ground for appeal. No reason to appeal is justified.

The Defendant’s written ground of appeal contains unreasonable sentencing, but cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal in this case.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench by applying Article 57 of the Criminal Code and Article 24 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion of

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice) Park Young-dong Kim Jong-ho