2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. Defendant C served as a police officer from around 2014 to January 2016 with the Seoul Regional Police Agency D Department.

B. On August 2014, Defendant C was informed of the Plaintiff’s possession, medication, and started investigation into the Plaintiff’s suspicion of narcotics.

C. Defendant C requested several times of attendance from the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff did not comply with the request, thereby making the Plaintiff designated the Plaintiff.

On October 19, 2015, the Plaintiff appeared in the department D of the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency, and only responded to the demand of Defendant C for recovery of urines and hairs.

Accordingly, the defendant C collected the plaintiff's urine and requested the National Scientific Investigation Institute to conduct an appraisal to verify whether narcotics are detected, and the results of the appraisal showed the voice response.

E. On October 21, 2015, a warrant of search, seizure, and verification was issued for the Plaintiff’s hair, and Defendant C collected the Plaintiff’s hair on November 19, 2015, and requested an appraisal to the National Institute of Scientific Investigation and Investigation to conduct an appraisal.

F. On December 17, 2015, when the Plaintiff did not comply with the request for attendance again, a warrant of arrest was issued to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff violated the Narcotics Act (Possession) and the Narcotics Act (Medication) were criminal facts. On August 13, 2016, the Plaintiff was arrested on the execution of the warrant of arrest.

G. On September 27, 2016, the prosecutor of the Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office issued a disposition that there was no suspicion of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (defluence of evidence) on the ground that it is difficult to specify the date and time of committing the crime of phiphone medication solely on the fact that there was a response to training of phiphonephones from the hair taken by the Plaintiff on September 27, 2016, and that it is difficult for the Plaintiff to recognize the fact of the crime because the Plaintiff

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 12-1 through 7, and Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office of the first instance court.