Counts in the prosecution schold be specified by crime time, place and methode. It is required not only for defendants to protect their procedual rights but also for courts to limit the scope of the trials. Illegal drug investigations were not generally supported by the crime victim or witness assistance as most of the drug-related crimes were committed in covert. Therefore, effective institution and support of a public action requires the testing for drug use as an essential element in the nation's battle against drug abuse and drug-related crime. Hair analysis for abused drugs has been recognized as a powerful tool to investigate exposure of subjects to these substances. However, it was difficult to estimate precisely the time of drug administration from the position of drug along the hair shaft. Even if the activity is to happen at some unspecified time, the court’s rejection of the case related to unspecified drug abuse may continue to pose significant problems for the integrity and impartiality of the judicial system, which is making it almost impossible for law enforcement agencies operating to bring about significant reductions in the abuse of illegal drug. Hair analysis results have been admitted as scientific evidence of drug use. The unresolved scientific issues should not obstruct the admissibility of strongly positive test results but also may not be explanatory for the entire case, even though specific questions need to be answered and the laboratory results may give strongly positive.

Counts in the prosecution should be specified by crime time, place and method. It is required not only for defendants to protect their procedural rights but also for courts to limit the scope of the trials. Moreover, count specification is helpful for prosecutors to prove that defendants are guilty. Drug abuse is usually committed secretly at a private place. It has few evidences, in case a suspect denies his/her drug abuse charge. About a decade ago, the Supreme Court of Korea tended to rule that the defendant charged for drug abuse was guilty with only hair analysis that revealed a drug component at the dependant's hair. However the Court has dismissed the drug abuse case that had hair analysis as single evidence since 2000. The Court's 2005Do7465 decision delivered Dec. 9, 2005 confirmed the recent Court's holdings that the drug abuse count based only on hair analysis didn't meet the requirement of count specification. This article reviews most Court's decisions related to count specification, examines hair analysis and focuses on the drug abuse indictment mainly based on hair analysis. I totally agree with the Court's view for following reasons. First, although hair analysis is admissible, it has still limitations as evidence; it doesn't prove when or how the dependant consumed drugs. In addition, it doesn't show the correlation between used drug amount and detected drug amount. Second, when a dependant denies hair analysis, a prosecutor is responsible for showing the custody of chains in the hair analysis. Third, considering the function of the count specification - protecting dependants' procedural rights - the drug abuse count relied only on the hair analysis is deemed not specified.