Degree of specify of facts charged

Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which provides the specific method of facts charged, requires a statement to the extent that it does not conflict with double prosecution or prescription, and “place” requires a statement to the extent that it does not conflict with territorial jurisdiction, and “the method” requires a statement to the extent that it indicates the elements of a crime, and the purport of the law requiring that it be equipped with specific elements to the extent that it is possible to easily exercise the defense right by limiting the scope of the defense of the defendant. Thus, the facts charged should be written to the extent that it is distinguishable from other facts by comprehensively taking into account the specific elements of the three cases.

Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 84Do1139 Delivered on August 14, 1984

Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 88No3298 delivered on November 16, 1988

The appeal is dismissed.

As to the Grounds of Appeal:

The phrase “date” of a crime referred to in Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which provides the specific method of facts charged, requires a statement to the extent that it does not conflict with the principle of double prosecution or prescription, and “place” requires a statement to the extent that the territorial jurisdiction can be replaced by the elements of a crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Do1139, Aug. 14, 1984). The legislative purport of the law requiring that three specific elements of a crime charged are to facilitate the exercise of the defense right by limiting the scope of the defendant’s defense, and therefore, the facts charged should be comprehensively stated to the extent that it is distinguishable from the specific facts that meet the above three specific elements of the crime.

The court below's decision that the defendants maintained the first trial order that the indictment which stated the summary of the facts charged that the defendants sent one time to sexual intercourse in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as the "Seoul Special Metropolitan City") around December 22, 1986 as women and male with their respective spouse shall be null and void is acceptable in light of the above legal principles, and there is no violation of law such as the theory of prosecution.

In the end, without any reason, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)