공소사실의 특정 -향정신성의약품관리법위반 범죄를 중심으로

The specific description of indictment or information makes it possible for a defendant to notice which act of his/her is charged. By focusing only to prove the specified criminal act during the trial, it also functions as a tool to save trial burden. A specifically stated indictment or information advises the accused of the time, place, and method of the charge. So it gives him/her a fair opportunity to prepare his/her defense. In this regard, it is desirable for information or indictment to be stated as specific as possible. However, in reality, there are limitations of the specification. The prosecutor can't go back to the crime scene when the crime committed against the flow of the time. Thus, as far as the element of the offence is proved, the specification can be relaxed so as to protect public benefits. Balancing the protection of the defendant's rights and the due punishment of the criminals is the key-point. An indictment is sufficient if it contains the elements of the offense charged and fairly informs the defendant of the charge against which should defend, and enables him to plead an acquittal or conviction in bar of future prosecutions for the same offense. When it comes to the element of the crime, information or indictment must be sufficiently and specifically stated. However, generally time and place are not the elements of crimes. In this case, the test of specification of indictment or indictment is not whether it might possibly have been made more certain, but whether it contains every element of offense intended to be charged. Date or time of alleged offense is only material with reference to the statute of limitation and to show the offence's commitment anterior to presentment of indictment. Considering the character of drug crime, the general description of time within the period which the scientific result of hair or urine examination proves should be allowed. The general description of place should be allowed too. It is almost impossible to specify the place of drug consumption if the defendant denies. There are some supreme court decisions which dismiss the charges of drug cases, such as "within 3 month period, Incheon and etc place", on account of the generality of description of the alleged charge. The basic reasoning might be this; if there is more than one charge, the act of every drug usage must e differentiated from other drug usage acts in order to be legitimately chargeable. The court also worries about that there would be no bar against double prosecution. However, the true meaning of prosecution above is to punish only one drug usage act of the defendant within the time and place of the hair or urine examination result proves. If the same or similar offence of the same period and place is prosecuted again, the charge should be dismissed because of res judicata or double jeopardy. The only once act theory in Japan can be referable.