A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

10,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

Of the facts charged in the instant case.

Punishment of the crime

On December 6, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with labor for a violation of the Narcotics Control Act at the Seoul Central District Court on one year and six months, and completed the execution of the sentence on January 5, 2014.

Defendant is not a narcotics handler.

On October 28, 2015, from around November 3, 2015 to around November 3, 2015, the Defendant administered the Mept Ampia, which is a local mental medicine, in an irregular manner, at a non-explosive area below the Chungcheongnam-gun budget group or below the Ansan-si, Seoul, or at a non-explosive area below the Simna City.

Summary of Evidence

1. Part of the three-time protocol concerning the examination of the suspect against the defendant;

1. An appraisal report on narcotics, an investigation report (related to the date and time of the administration of phiphonephones by a suspect), and an investigation report (Attachment to the details of cell phone conversations of the person under investigation);

1. Previous convictions: Resident inquiry and investigation career data, inquiry into investigation records (the previous judgment, attachment of the previous judgment, and confirmation of the date of departure from the court), copy of the judgment, and current status of personal identification [the determination of defense counsel's assertion] of this part of the facts charged are highly likely to obstruct Defendant's exercise of defense because the date and place of medication, the quantity of medication, and the method of medication are not entirely specified.

As such, I asserts to the effect that it is illegal.

However, even if the date, time, place, method, etc. of a crime are not explicitly indicated in the indictment, if it is not contrary to the purport of the law allowing the specification of the facts charged, and if it is inevitable to indicate the generality of the crime in light of the nature of the crime charged, and it does not interfere with the defendant's exercise of his/her right

We cannot see (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do4671, Aug. 26, 2010). According to the above evidence, the prosecutor, according to the above evidence, is about the date and time of recovery of the Mesphere from the training reaction of the Mesphere, which is a local mental medicine, the date and time of medication of the Mesphere, the period of time discharged from the Mesphere after medication, and the place of residence