In addition, the facts charged of the instant case in which the time and place of medication are specified based on the results of the climatic appraisal against the Defendant, and the quantity of medication and the method of medication are stated in detail.

It is difficult to see it.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case and erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances found by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the denial of medication, namely, ① the Defendant asserted that the first prosecutor’s investigation of the instant case was conducted on April 2015 and that F was only two times around the first prosecutor’s office, and that F was likely to drink the Defendant. However, it is necessary to say that “F was boomed at the time when she was boomed or drinking drinking, or drinking drinking drinking, etc.,, and that there was no shot sense that he was shotphone into his body.”

The annual interest “ did not exist” in the prosecutor’s inquiry.

Then, “The reason for doubting F” is that a person with narcotics, among those who had been in doubt of F, did not engage in any doubtful conduct for the following reasons: (a) in the second prosecutorial investigation, the person who had been in doubt of F, was in F, and was in doubt of being in F, so that the person with narcotics, from among those who had been in doubt of F, was in F.

There is no doubt that the F was shot at the time of the administration of philophones.

The statement to the effect that “” was stated, and ③ the Defendant had an impact on the determination of training of urines used to recover as urines at the lower court.