All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) The facts charged by Defendant (1) and misunderstanding of the legal principles on the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. do not specify the date, time, place, etc.

In addition, the Defendant did not administer philophones like this part of the facts charged, and the response to a request for appraisal, which the court below cited as evidence, is illegal evidence that the investigative agency failed to comply with the investigation procedure, such as not sealing the Defendant in a face-to-face state and sending it to the National Institute of Scientific Investigation, and requesting appraisal. Therefore, it cannot be a evidence of conviction against the facts charged in this part.

(2) The sentence of the lower court (one year and two months of imprisonment, additional collection KRW 200,00) is too unreasonable.

B. The above-mentioned sentence of the prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. As to the facts charged, the entry of the facts charged in respect of the non-guilty assertion should be made by specifying the time, date, place, and method of a crime (Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act), and the purport of the law requiring the specification of the facts charged is to facilitate the exercise of the defendant’s right of defense. As such, the facts charged are sufficient if the facts constituting the elements are stated to the extent that it is recognizable 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 facts charged, and if it is inevitable to indicate general facts in light of the nature of the offense charged, and

Nor can it be viewed (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do4854, Jul. 24, 2008). The lower court set the date and time based on the outcome of the Defendant’s defense appraisal, both of which are charged, and the call details regarding the location.