The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

An application for compensation in the trial of the applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant was in a state of mental and physical weakness due to mental illness, etc. at the time of committing the crime of assault, bodily injury, and interference with the performance of official duties.

B. The relevant facts charged are specified since the misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles on the violation of the Narcotics Control Act does not specify the date, time, place, method, etc. of the crime.

It can not be seen, and since the group was fested with drinking water, etc. containing the Defendant’s crypters, the Defendant did not administer the crypters by itself, since the crypters were detected in the Defendant’s crypt and hair.

(c)

The punishment of the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment and 100,000 won of additional collection) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following: (a) assault and injury; (b) interference with the performance of official duties; (c) the method and method of the crime; and (d) the circumstances after the crime, etc. acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court on the assertion of mental and physical weakness, the Defendant did not have any mental and physical weakness at the time

As such, the above argument is without merit.

B. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the purport of the law requiring the submission of specific elements of the facts charged under Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act is to facilitate the exercise of the right of defense by specifying the scope of defense of the accused. As such, it is sufficient that the facts charged are to be stated to the extent that the specific elements of the crime are recognizable to the extent that the specific facts constituting the elements of the crime can be identified by comprehensively taking account of the specific elements, and the “date of time” of the crime under the provisions of the above Act can be stated to the extent that it does not conflict with double prosecution or prescription. Thus, even if the date of the crime was not specified in the indictment, the statement is contrary to the above