The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. On May 23, 2014, the Defendant, in the facts charged, was sentenced to a judgment dismissing the prosecution as a crime of violating the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. in the Sungwon District Court’s Sungnam Branch branch.

Defendant is not a narcotics handler.

From September 14, 2013 to December 13, 2013, the Defendant administered one time by means of injection or drinking, the amount of non-commercial psychotropic drugs at an inland-si 2-dong, fugitive 2-dong, fugitive 3-dong, or Sincheon-si Manyang-dong, main cancer or Sungnam-si Manwon-dong, Gangnam-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mobro-dong, and Yangnam-gu Mobro-dong.

2. The purport of Article 254(4) of the former Criminal Procedure Act provides, “The entry of facts constituting the crime shall be made to specify the facts by specifying the time, date, place, and method of the crime.” The purpose of Article 254(4) of the former Criminal Procedure Act is to facilitate the efficiency and speed of the trial by limiting the object of the trial, and at the same time to facilitate the exercise of the defendant’s right to defense by specifying the scope of defense. As a prosecutor, the above three specific elements should be comprehensively taken into account and describe specific facts that constitute the elements of the crime so as to distinguish the facts from other facts. The same applies to the entry of the facts

(2) In light of the nature of the criminal facts charged during the short period of public prosecution, it is difficult to view that multiple criminal acts are likely to have been committed after the lapse of the period specified in the above medication, and thus, subject to adjudication is limited to those subject to adjudication.

Therefore, Article 254 of the Criminal Procedure Act cannot be deemed to constitute a specific fact-finding statement.