beta
Text
The judgment below
Part 1-A of the crime (Crime of Breach of Trust) shall be reversed.
The Defendant is innocent.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Legal doctrine misunderstandings (as to the part concerning the crime No. 1-A (Crime of Breach of Trust) as indicated in the lower judgment), this part of the facts charged did not specify the time and place.
B. There is no fact that the Defendant received money from B as stated in the judgment below, and there is no fact that the Defendant received money from B as stated in this part of the judgment below, and there is no illegal solicitation.
(c)
The punishment sentenced by the lower court [one year of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime No. 1-A (Crime of Breach of Trust) as stated in the lower judgment, and 50,000 won of fine for the crime No. 2 as stated in the lower judgment (Crime of Violence)] is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The purpose of Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which requires the submission of specific elements of the facts charged, is to facilitate the exercise of the right of defense by specifying the scope of the defendant's defense. Thus, the facts charged are sufficient to include specific elements in the scope of the defendant's defense and to the extent that it is possible to distinguish specific facts that meet the requirements for the constitution of the crime from other facts, and the "day of the crime" under the above provision of the Criminal Procedure Act is to be stated to the extent that it does not conflict with double prosecution or prescription. Thus, even if the date of the crime is not specified specifically in the indictment, the statement does not go against the above extent, and in addition, if the general indication about the time is inevitable in light of the nature of the crime, and if it is deemed that the exercise of the defendant's right of defense is not impeded, the contents of the indictment have
Nor can it be viewed (Supreme Court Decision 97Do1211 delivered on August 22, 1997, etc.). In this part, the facts charged are not written by each date, and the place of crime by each date is also written as “office or M cafeteria of the J” without individually stipulating the place of crime. However, each crime committed is double prosecution or prescription.