Defendant 2 is not guilty.

A summary of the judgment shall be announced to Defendant 2.

Defendant 1’s appeal is dismissed.

A. Defendant 1

(1) misunderstanding of facts

Defendant 1 did not have administered philophones with Defendant 2 from October 3, 2014 to October 13 of the same month.

(2) Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment of the lower court (the first crime: imprisonment with prison labor for two months, and the second crime in its holding: imprisonment with prison labor for ten months, and the additional collection of 200,000 won) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant 2

(1) Note 1) M&D 2)

The indictment of this case is unlawful since the time, place, quantity, and medication of the facts charged are not specified.

(2) misunderstanding of facts

Defendant 2 did not have administered philophones with Defendant 1 from October 3, 2014 to October 13 of the same month.

(3) Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment of the lower court (one year and four months of imprisonment, and one hundred thousand won of collection) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Defendant 2’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal principle (whether to specify the facts charged)

(1) Relevant legal principles

The facts charged must be stated clearly by specifying the time, date, place, and method of a crime (Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act), and the purport of the law requiring 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 if the facts constituting the facts charged are stated to the extent that it is recognizable from different facts by integrating these elements, and even if the date, time, place, method, etc. of a crime are not specified in the indictment, it does not go against the purport of the law allowing the specification of the facts charged, and if the general indication is inevitable in light of the nature of the facts charged, and it does not interfere with the defendant’s exercise of his/her right to defense (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2694, Jun. 14, 2007, etc.).

(2) Judgment in this case

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the trial court, the prosecutor organized the facts charged that Defendant 2 had administered phiphones with Defendant 1 at the same time and place as seen earlier, in light of the following: (a) the date of gathering phiphones from Defendant 1; (b) the period from which the Defendants had resided or come to and out of the place of residence during the aforementioned period; and (c) the Defendants’ statement about the place of residence during the aforementioned period; and (d) Defendant 1’s statement within the period from October 3, 2014 to October 13, 2014; and (b) the place was located within the period from which the Defendants’ statement was opened as “the day of crime from October 3, 2014 to October 13, 2014; and (b) the Defendant 2 had the volume of phiphones administered with Defendant 1 at the same time and place as indicated in the facts charged; and (c) in light of the evidence examination details and characteristics of the narcotics-related crime, etc.

B. The defendants' assertion of mistake of facts

(1) Defendant 1

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court, this part of the facts charged that the said Defendant administered philophones from October 3, 2014 to October 13, 2014 can be fully recognized. The Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts is without merit.

① As a result of the appraisal of the urine taken by the Gyeonggi Provincial Police Agency on October 13, 2014 with respect to the above Defendant, the reaction of phiphones was confirmed. The urine test is known to be possible to detect phiphones up to 4 days after the medication in the case of a simple medication, and 7-10 days after the medication in the case of a habitual medication, and accordingly, the said Defendant is deemed to have been administered phiphones during the period from October 3, 2014 to October 13, 2014.

② As a result of the appraisal of the hair collected from the Gyeonggi Provincial Police Agency on the same point of view, the Defendant was found to have been aware of the reaction of phiphonephones in the entire area of hair from the Madern to about 12 cm.

③ From October 3, 2014 to October 13, 2014, Defendant 1 got out of Nonindicted 2’s assault, etc. to escape, Defendant 1 had been mainly staying in the vicinity of the Dongducheon-si Action from around September 2, 2014.

(2) Defendant 2

㈎ 공소사실의 요지

Defendant 2 conspiredd with Defendant 1 on October 3, 2014 to around the same month from October 13, 2014, administered philophones by infecting or drinking philophones.

㈏ 원심의 판단

The lower court found Defendant 1 guilty of having been provided with Defendant 1’s cell phone number 1 to 200: (a) it was possible to detect phiphones by up to ten (10) days in cases of habitual medication; (b) Defendant 1 can be deemed to have administered phiphones between October 3, 2014 and October 13, 2014; and (c) Defendant 1 requested Defendant 2 to assist around September 2, 2014 and sent a large number of time after being provided with Defendant 2 with 1,00 cellphones from 10 to 14,000; (c) Defendant 1 was found guilty of having been provided with 1,000 popons from 2,000 to 14,000,000 copons from 1,000 to 2,000,0000 copons from 1,000 to 2,000 copons.

㈐ 당심의 판단

Comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances found by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court and the lower court’s judgment, it is difficult to readily conclude that the facts charged in the instant case where Defendant 2, from October 3, 2014 to October 13, 2014, he/she administered phiphonephones with Defendant 1, together with Defendant 1, was proven without reasonable doubt, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed to have proven the facts charged against Defendant 2. Defendant 2’s assertion of mistake of facts is with merit.

① As a result of the appraisal of the hair that took effect on November 19, 2014, Defendant 2 was confirmed, the reaction of philophone training was confirmed. However, the above Defendant asserted that, although he was in a situation exceeding 3 cm in the length of her hair at the time, he did not cut back close to her mother father in the process of collecting hair, the period of philophone medication cannot be inferred with only the result of the appraisal of the collected hair.

In light of the Mascopher’s Mascopher’s Mascopher’s statement against the above defendant, there is no evidence to confirm whether the above 60-meter Mascopher’s Mascopher’s 60cm in length was cut close to the mother. In addition, even if the Mascopher’s Mascophers were detected from 1-2 cm in length, even if the Mascophers were detected from the Mascopher’s Mascopher’s length, the difference between the Mascopher’s Mascopher’s Mascopher’s Mascopher’s Mascopher’s Mascopher’s Mascopher’s Mascopher’s Mascopher’s Mascopher’s Mascopher’s Mascopth

② As to the facts charged that the Defendants administered philophones at the same time between October 3, 2014 and October 13, 2014, the Defendants consistently denied the charges from the investigation agency to the trial court, and there is no other direct evidence, such as the statement of a third party in support thereof.

③ Defendant 2 asserts that Defendant 1 did not have been with himself/herself as from October 3, 2014 to October 13, 2014, and that he/she had lost the number of women due to the Incheon and Bluecheon.

In full view of the fact that Defendant 1 entered Defendant 2 on October 8, 2014, Defendant 1: “At the time, Nonindicted 3 was able to take advantage of what day before each day” (Article 1:13 of the Investigation Record); Defendant 2’s transfer of KRW 200,00 to Defendant 1 on October 11, 2014; Defendant 2 at the time, at the time, was giving advice to an investigation agency and giving advice to Defendant 1 regarding the administration, it is difficult to readily conclude that Defendant 1 had been on a different place beyond Dongcheon City for the above 10-day period (Article 2 of the Investigation Record No. 1,133 of the Investigation Record No. 1,133 of the Investigation Record); Defendant 2 did not appear to be able to readily conclude that Defendant 1 had been administered at the place where Defendant 1 was 10,000,000,000 won for a more than 10-day period than 14,000.

④ On or after September 2, 2014, it is not clearly confirmed at the time when the Defendants followed the discussion on Defendant 1’s self-denunciation. However, it is confirmed that Defendant 1 appeared at the Gyeonggi Provincial Police Agency on October 13, 2014 and collected urines, urines, hairs, hairs, etc. after undergoing an investigation on the suspect interrogation is made in the form of voluntary appearance at the end of the consultation with the police officer in charge of the Gyeonggi Provincial Police Agency in advance. Defendant 1 is the recovery of urines and hairs when attending the National Police Agency; Defendant 1 is likely to detect urphones up to 10 days in the case of urines, and Defendant 2 is also well known.

However, it is difficult for Defendant 2 to have voluntarily present Defendant 1 on October 13, 2014, following consultation with police officers in charge of the Gyeonggi Provincial Police Agency, when he/she administered phiphones with Defendant 1, as indicated in the facts charged in this case. Rather, Defendant 2 can be seen as having been well aware of Defendant 1’s phiphones medication (the fact of medication after October 3, 2014, which could be detected by urines) until October 13, 2014.

C. Defendant 1’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing

The fact that the above defendant does not go to the crime of selling, arranging, etc. of philophones when administering philophones is favorable to the above defendant.

However, in light of the fact that the crime related to narcotics is a crime that causes degradation of individuals, homes, and society as a whole, and requires strict measures, and that the above defendant does not cut off the crime related to phiphones by committing the crime again during the period during which the execution period is suspended due to the same kind of crime. In light of the investigation attitude of the above defendant, it is doubtful whether the above defendant is willing to liquidate the relationship with persons around the surrounding area where phiphones are administered and overcome the addiction. In addition, in full view of the above defendant's age, character and conduct, family relation, frequency and quantity of handling phiphones, circumstances after the crime, etc., even if the court below considered equity with the case where the crime No. 1 of the above judgment is judged at the same time as the crime of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. for which punishment has become final and conclusive, each punishment imposed on the above defendant is deemed appropriate.

3. Conclusion

Since the appeal by Defendant 1 is without merit, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act (However, it is corrected to delete “in collusion with Defendant 2” in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure (Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure).

Since the appeal by Defendant 2 is well-grounded, pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant 2 is reversed, and it is again decided as follows after pleading.

Judges Lee Do-young (Presiding Judge)

(1) Defendant 2’s defense counsel asserts that the term of validity of the warrant of arrest issued by the above Defendant on October 16, 2014 from October 23, 2014 to December 31, 2015, which had been arbitrarily changed, has no effect as above, and thus, the arrest of the above Defendant on November 19, 2014 under the above warrant of arrest was unlawful, and that the result of the defense and the assessment of maternity against the above Defendant is inadmissible as evidence collected from such unlawful arrest condition (the written opinion dated August 16, 2016). This does not constitute legitimate grounds for appeal as it was asserted after the expiration of the period for filing the statement of grounds of appeal. However, even upon ex officio review, since the term of validity of the warrant of arrest issued by the above Defendant on October 16, 2015 was legally recognized, it cannot be deemed that the above Defendant’s defense was lawfully arrested. This part of the premise is without merit.

(2) Defendant 1’s defense counsel also asserted that the indictment was unlawful on September 28, 2016 without specifying the facts charged. However, this does not constitute legitimate grounds for appeal as it was asserted after the lapse of the period for filing an appeal, even if he/she ex officio examined the facts charged against Defendant 1 (see, e.g., the part of judgment on Defendant 2 (see, e., paragraph (1))). This part of Defendant 1’s defense counsel also has no reason to believe that the facts charged against Defendant 1 was sufficiently specified.

Note 3) The house of “Nonindicted 3” is located in the Seo-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City.