A. Defendant 1) The Defendant did not commit each of the crimes described in the instant facts charged.

2) The date and time of the crime indicated in this part of the facts charged cannot be deemed to be limited to those subject to the judgment on the damage to farming and fishing villages, since the possibility of multiple medications within the said period cannot be deemed to be limited to those subject to the judgment on the damage to farming and fishing villages, the facts charged were not specified.

3) The sentence of the lower court (one year and four months of imprisonment) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant by the Prosecutor (one year and four months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court regarding the sale and medication of phiphones on February 9, 2017, the Defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that he/she sold phiphones to H and administered phiphones as indicated in this part of the facts charged.

Therefore, the decision of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is a violation of law as alleged by the defendant.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

(1) H purchased phiphones from the Defendant, as stated in this part of the facts charged, from the investigative agency to the court of the court below, and thereafter witnessing that the Defendant administered phiphones.

The statement is consistent with the main part of the statement, and it is believed that the statement about the background, place, situation at the time, etc. of the defendant is specific and reasonable, and it is believed (the statement about the date and time of crime H has been reversed several times). However, at the time of the initial statement by the investigative agency, the number of times has not yet passed since the phonephone was administered, and thereafter the date of crime has not been memoryed.