Of the judgment of the court below regarding the defendant's grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts as to the part of the crime), ① the first prosecutor's interrogation protocol and written statement of the defendant to the prosecutor's office were put into custody for another case, and the serious punishment was imposed, and thus, the confession of the crime of this case was not voluntary, and ② The prosecutor's protocol of the prosecutor's office against C is reversed, and thus, it is not reliable.

Therefore, although the defendant did not possess a philophone as stated in the facts of the crime in the judgment below, there is an error of mistake in the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty on the basis of the above evidence.

As to the dismissal of prosecution among the judgment below on the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor (misunderstanding of the legal principle as to the dismissal of prosecution), the prosecutor presumed the time of the Defendant’s scopon medication based on the result from the copon test, and considering the unique characteristics of the narcotics medication crime, it is reasonable to deem that all the facts charged on the copon medication was fully specified from the police officer on December 2, 201 to the police officer on February 201. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principle as to the specification of the facts charged

Judgment

The judgment of the court below on the grounds for appeal by the defendant is based on the confession that the defendant was investigated by the prosecutor on April 13, 2012 as evidence of the facts constituting the crime of this case, and there exists the first interrogation protocol of the prosecutor's office, the written statement prepared by the defendant and the written statement by the prosecutor's office C. However, in the above interrogation protocol of the defendant, the defendant was investigated by the prosecutor's office on April 13, 2012, and did not take a siren as shown in the judgment of the court below, and all of the crimes of this case were denied, and the investigation officer conducted telephone conversations with L/he living with the defendant around the time of the crime of this case.