The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the facts charged in this case’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles are invalid because the date, time, place, and method of indictment are not specified, it is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the specification of the facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In the absence of any fact that the Defendant sold, issued, or administered philophones as stated in the facts charged of this case, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged of this case and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles, the facts charged by the court below should be stated clearly by specifying the time, date, place, and method of a crime (Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act). Since the purport of the law requiring the specification of the facts charged lies in facilitating the exercise of the defendant’s right of defense, the facts charged are sufficient to be stated to the extent that the facts constituting the crime are recognizable from other facts, and even if the date, time, place, method, etc. of a crime are not specified in the indictment, it does not go against the purport of the law requiring the specification of the facts charged. In light of the nature of the facts charged, if it is inevitable to indicate general facts in light of the nature of the offense charged, and it does not interfere with the defendant’s exercise of his/her right of defense, it cannot be deemed that the contents of the indictment were not specified (see Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do4854, Jul. 24, 2008; 2010Do4671, Aug. 26, 2010).