마약류 투약사건의 공소사실 특정에 관한 기존 논의는 대체적으로 2010년까지 이루어졌고, 주로 모발감정결과 필로폰 양성반응이 나왔음에도 불구하고 투약사실을 부인하는 경우에 범죄일자를 어느 정도로 특정할지에 관한 그때까지의 대법원 판결들을 분석하였으며, 결국 이에 관한 대법원의 입장이 일관되지 못하다는 것으로 정리할 수 있다. 그런데 대법원이 2011년부터 2012년까지 마약류 투약사건의 공소사실 특정에 관하여 선고한 판결 3건을 분석해 보면, 마약류 투약사실을 부인하는 피의자를 필로폰 모발 양성반응결과를 근거로 기소하기 위해서는 첫째 피의자가 필로폰을 투약하는 것을 목격하였다는 제보자의 진술 내지 피의자가 필로폰에 취한 모습을 목격하였다는 제보자의 진술이나 피의자가 필로폰을 투약하였다는 말을 피의자로부터 들었다는 제보자의 진술 등 피의자가 필로폰을 투약하였다는 점에 관한 ‘뚜렷한 증거’가 있을 것, 둘째 필로폰 투약일자를 적어도 10일 정도로 특정할 것이 요구된다고 이해된다. 또한 마약류 투약사실을 부인하는 피의자를 필로폰 소변 양성반응결과를 근거로 기소하기 위해서는 피의자가 필로폰을 투약하였다는 점에 관한 뚜렷한 증거가 필요 없지만, 범죄일자를 필로폰이 소변을 통해 배출될 수 있는 기간인 최대 10일 이내로 특정할 것이 요구된다고 할 것이다. 그리고 마약류 투약사건에 관하여 제보자에 대한 가명조서를 작성할 때 제보자 진술을 어느 정도로 특정할지에 관한 문제는 제보자의 신상 노출 방지와 피의자의 정당한 방어권 보장이 상충하는 문제이다. 이에 관하여는 기존에 거의 논의가 없던 상황이나, 공소사실 특정에 관한 위와 같은 대법원의 입장을 참작한다면, 제보자의 목격일자를 최대 10일 이내로 특정하여 양자의 조화점을 찾을 수 있다고 본다.

The discussion on the degree to which the facts constituting the narcotic crime charged must be specified has been made until 2010. The thesis analyzed the Supreme Court decisions regarding how to specify the date of dose of methamphetamine, and came up with the conclusion that the Supreme Court lacks consistency on this issue. Upon analyzing Supreme Court decisions rendered on this issue from 2011 to 2012, it seems that the Supreme Court requires the following to be met in order to indict defendant of narcotic crime who denies the charge, solely on basis of methamphetamine-positive result of hair test. First, these must be a ‘firm evidence' of dose of methamphetamine, such as a informant or witness who testifies that he or she has seen the defendant taking methamphetamine or at least in the state of hallucination. Second, the date of dose of methamphetamine must be specified within the time span of ten days. In cases indicted on basis of methamphetamine-positive result from urine test, the Supreme Court does not require the firm evidence, but still requires that the date be specified within the time span of ten days. The degree to which the statement of informant be specified in prosecutorial record written using false name to protect the informant is a matter of striking the balance between protection of informant and protection of defendant's right to defend himself. There has not been much discussion on this issue. However, taking the above-mentioned Supreme Court decisions into consideration, requiring that the date of crime be specified within the time span of ten days would provide a reasonable solution on this issue.

The thesis analyzed the Supreme Court decisions regarding how to specify the date of dose of methamphetamine, and came up with the conclusion that the Supreme Court lacks consistency on this issue. Upon analyzing Supreme Court decisions rendered on this issue from 2011 to 2012, it seems that the Supreme Court requires the following to be met in order to indict defendant of narcotic crime who denies the charge, solely on basis of methamphetamine-positive result of hair test. First, these must be a ‘firm evidence' of dose of methamphetamine, such as a informant or witness who testifies that he or she has seen the defendant taking methamphetamine or at least in the state of hallucination. Second, the date of dose of methamphetamine must be specified within the time span of ten days. In cases indicted on basis of methamphetamine-positive result from urine test, the Supreme Court does not require the firm evidence, but still requires that the date be specified within the time span of ten days. The degree to which the statement of informant be specified in prosecutorial record written using false name to protect the informant is a matter of striking the balance between protection of informant and protection of defendant's right to defend himself. There has not been much discussion on this issue. However, taking the above-mentioned Supreme Court decisions into consideration, requiring that the date of crime be specified within the time span of ten days would provide a reasonable solution on this issue.

narcotic crimes, specification of the facts constituting the narcotic crime charged, protection of defendant's right to defend himself, specification of the statement of informant, protection of informant, prosecutorial record written using false name