All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1’s facts charged against Defendant A constitute a case where the prosecution procedure is invalid in violation of the provisions of law because the date, time, place, method, and dose of the crime of scopon medication cannot be specified. (2) Defendant A’s misunderstanding of facts reveals the fact that the scopon is mixed with the scopon on October 29, 2012, thereby making the scopon take the scopon by drinking the scopon, and there was no intention on the crime of scopon medication.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (one hundred months of imprisonment, additional collection of one hundred thousand won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. Defendant A1’s statement in the facts charged as to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles must be made by specifying the time, 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 of defense. As such, it is sufficient that the facts charged are stated to the extent that it is recognizable from other facts by comprehensively taking account of these elements, and even if the date, time, place, and method of a crime are not specified in the indictment, it does not go against the purport of the law requiring the specification of the facts charged, and if it is inevitable to indicate the facts charged in light of the nature of the offense charged, and it does not interfere with the Defendant’s right of defense (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do4671, Aug. 26, 2010). The prosecutor’s statement of the facts charged was found to have been detected for 20 days, which is the result of the Defendant’s pononononon.