A. Defendant 1) Defendant 1 did not have administered philophones, as stated in the facts charged in the instant case.

2) The instant facts charged by misapprehending the legal doctrine did not specifically specify the date, time, place, and method of the crime.

3) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one year of imprisonment, additional collection of 100,000 won) is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below on the defendant is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the court below's determination on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts was based on the execution of a search and seizure warrant, and the defendant's urine, hair, and philophone inhaled body was seized on February 19, 2018. According to the appraisal by the National Institute of Scientific Investigation, according to the appraisal by the National Institute of Scientific Investigation, the above urine and amloppeds were found to have detected of the defendant's genes in the above urine and amloppeds, and according to the above facts found, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant administered amlophone as stated in the facts charged in this case. Thus, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is groundless.

B. Determination 1 on the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles is based on the relevant legal principles, and the facts charged should be stated clearly by specifying the date, time, place, and method of a crime (Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act). The purport of the law demanding the specification of the facts charged is to facilitate the exercise of the defendant’s right to defense. As such, the facts charged are sufficient to be stated to the extent that the facts constituting the element of the crime are recognizable to other facts by comprehensively taking into account these elements, and even if the date, time, place, and method of a crime are not clearly stated in the indictment, it is not contrary to the purport of the law allowing the specification of the facts charged, in light of the nature of the crime charged, and it is inevitable to exercise the defendant’s right to defense