All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

A. The punishment imposed by the lower court (a year of imprisonment, an additional collection of 100,00 won) is too unreasonable.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (in fact-finding or misunderstanding of legal principles and unreasonable sentencing) 1, it is recognized that the defendant, in collusion with E, administered phiphones, and delivered phiphones to E. 2) The above punishment sentenced by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principle

A. Despite the fact that the Defendant is not a person handling narcotics, the Defendant dealt with the psychotropic drugs-related clocks (so-called “slickphones” hereinafter) as follows.

1. As between July 24, 2018 and July 25, 2018, the Defendant jointly administered, the prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment with the date and time of the crime verbally on the date and time before the date of the crime on April 30, 2019, and the lower court granted permission.

(See Court records 473 pages). In the residence of the building C and E in the Seoul Northern-gu Seoul Northern-gu, and subparagraph (D), the philophone was administered in a way that dyphophones (ordinaryly administered once 0.03 to 0.07g) were added into a single-use injection instrument and dyphophones were injected in a way that dyphophones were injected into his arms and dyphophones, and the dypphone was administered in the same way.

Accordingly, the Defendant conspired with E to administer philophones.

2. At around 04:00 on July 26, 2018, the Defendant received philophones, in the dwelling of the Defendant located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Seoul) and sent E with a non-fluorial philophones (a half-time medication) contained in the one-time injection machine (a half-time medication).

Accordingly, the defendant accepted philophones.

B. The lower court’s determination is that there is no evidence that the part of E’s statement in the second protocol of interrogation of the Defendant in the prosecutor’s protocol against the Defendant is not established by E, and that is, Article 314, 312, or 313 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which is the exception of the hearsay rule, is prepared at preparation