Supreme Court: "No Problem Even If Drug Possession Date Is Generally Indicated in Indictment"

The Supreme Court has ruled that even if the prosecution fails to specify the exact date on which drugs were possessed and only provides a general indication when indicting a suspect accused of drug possession, the indictment should be considered valid as long as it does not hinder the exercise of the right to defense.

According to the legal community on the 9th, the Supreme Court's First Division (Presiding Justice Oh Kyung-mi) upheld the lower court's ruling that found Mr. A guilty of violating the Narcotics Control Act (stimulants and marijuana).

Supreme Court, Seocho-dong, Seoul.

Mr. A, who had already been sentenced to prison twice for drug-related charges and served 2 years and 8 months before being released in May 2021, was indicted again for possessing, smoking, and using methamphetamine and marijuana multiple times from November 2021 to April last year.

The first and second instance courts found all of his charges guilty, sentencing him to 2 years and 6 months in prison, ordering him to complete a 40-hour drug treatment rehabilitation program, and imposing a fine of 200,000 won.

While Mr. A admitted to the other offenses, he denied the charge that he possessed methamphetamine at around 8:00 PM in late November 2021 at an apartment in Dalseo-gu, Daegu.

However, the trial courts rejected Mr. A’s claim based on the following: witness B’s testimony that "Mr. A possessed methamphetamine at the apartment in late November 2011," the credibility of witness B’s testimony considering their courtroom demeanor and willingness to testify despite the risk of punishment, Mr. A’s inconsistent statements initially denying knowledge of the apartment’s location or visiting it around that time but later admitting to visiting a senior’s residence there, and the confirmation that Mr. A’s mobile base station location at the time of the offense was near the apartment.

In particular, Mr. A argued that the prosecution was illegal because it did not specify the exact date when indicting him. Article 254, Paragraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which regulates the method of indictment and the indictment document, states that "the indictment must specify the date, place, and method of the crime to identify the facts." He contended that since the date of the crime was not specified, the indictment should be dismissed.

However, the Supreme Court judged that there was no problem with the prosecutor’s indictment.

First, the court cited previous Supreme Court rulings, stating, "The indictment must specify the date, place, and method of the crime to identify the facts."

The court explained, "Here, the date of the crime only needs to be stated to the extent that it does not cause double jeopardy or violate the statute of limitations. The purpose of requiring such elements to specify the indictment is to facilitate the defendant’s exercise of the right to defense. Therefore, the indictment only needs to specify the elements sufficiently to distinguish the charged facts from other facts."

It added, "Therefore, even if the indictment does not specify the date and place of the crime in detail, as long as it does not violate the above standard, and considering the nature of the charged crime, if the general indication is unavoidable and does not hinder the defendant’s exercise of the right to defense, the indictment cannot be considered unspecified."

Regarding the indictment issue raised by Mr. A, the court stated, "The date of the crime is somewhat generally indicated as 'around 8:00 PM in late November 2021'," but "this is because the investigation of the informant was conducted long after the offense, making it difficult to expect an exact recollection of the date." It further added, "Considering the nature of drug possession crimes, where it is difficult to secure objective evidence other than the informant’s testimony, it was unavoidable to indicate the date generally rather than specifying it to a certain point in time."

Finally, the court concluded, "This part can be distinguished from other criminal facts by specifying the place of the crime, and although the date is not specified in detail, it is sufficient to avoid double jeopardy or statute of limitations issues, so it cannot be considered an infringement of the defendant’s right to defense," and "therefore, there is no illegality in the lower court’s ruling regarding the specification of the indictment."

Meanwhile, Mr. A argued that it was illegal for the second-instance court to not rule on the appeal ground that "the indictment was not specified," as it regarded the defendant’s side as having withdrawn this ground.

Initially, Mr. A’s side included a claim of "misunderstanding of the law regarding the specification of the indictment" along with factual errors and excessive sentencing in the appeal brief. However, at the first appeal hearing, when stating the grounds for appeal, they only mentioned factual errors and excessive sentencing, leading the court to omit ruling on the specification issue.

However, the Supreme Court dismissed Mr. A’s appeal, stating that the second-instance court’s misunderstanding of the law or omission of judgment regarding the withdrawal of the appeal ground did not affect the judgment outcome.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.