The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Inasmuch as the date and time of the crime was specified only by the statement in B, the facts charged cannot be deemed to have been specified. ② In the case of crimes Nos. 1 through 6, and 9, the drug price is not that paid by B from the Defendant, and ③ in the case of crimes Nos. 7 and 8, if the Defendant and B jointly purchased phiphones, it is not that the Defendant sold phiphones to B.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (a 3 years of imprisonment, 6420,00 won additional collection) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1 Determination on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles must be made by specifying the time, date, place, and method of a crime (Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act). The purport of the law requiring the specification of the facts charged is to facilitate the exercise of the defendant’s right to defense. As such, the facts charged is sufficient to include the facts in question in a way that can easily distinguish the facts from other facts, and it does not go against the purport of the law allowing the specification of the facts charged even if the date, place, method, etc. of the crime are not explicitly indicated in the indictment, and it does not go against the purport of the law allowing the specification of the facts charged even if the time, place, and method of the crime are not indicated in the indictment. Thus, if the general indication is inevitable in light of the nature of the facts charged, and it does not interfere with the defendant’s right to defense, the contents of the indictment cannot be deemed as not being specified (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do2694, Jul. 24, 2008>

However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the trial court, the prosecutor is respectively against B.