beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The date and time of the offense indicated in the facts charged in the instant case, which is unspecified in the facts charged (as of May 201, 201: 21:00) stated in the Defendant’s Madern testimony based on the Defendant’s Madern testimony, thereby significantly impeding the Defendant’s exercise of the right to defense. As such, the public prosecutor’s indictment in the instant case cannot be deemed to have
B. Although the testimony of D by a person of mistake of facts that the defendant testified to administer philophones is not reliable, and thus it is difficult to believe that the statement is not reliable, and each request for appraisal by the defendant is different from the appraisal result, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case based on each of the above evidences, there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the judgment.
2. Determination
A. The purport of Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as to the assertion that the facts charged are not guilty is that "a statement of facts charged must specify the time, date, place, and method of a crime shall be made to specify the facts." The purpose of Article 254(4) of the same Act is to facilitate the efficiency and speed of the trial by limiting the object of the trial, and at the same time to facilitate the exercise of the defendant's right to defense by specifying the scope of defense and facilitate the exercise of the defendant's right to defense by specifying the scope of defense. As such, the prosecutor, as a prosecutor, shall comprehensively consider the three specific elements above, shall state specific facts that constitute the elements of the crime so that they can be identified from other facts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do7465, Dec.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do391 Decided April 28, 2006, Supreme Court Decision 2010Do2857 Decided April 29, 2010, etc.). The prosecutor in the instant case leads to the reaction of both 110 and 110 popon training from the Defendant’s hair collected on August 25, 201, and 1-7 cm in length.