In addition, all appeals filed by both medical care and custody applicants and the prosecutor are dismissed.

A. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the facts charged as to the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. between around October 18, 2016 and around October 19, 2016 are specified in the time and place of administration by the Mepters.

Therefore, this part of the public prosecution is null and void because the procedure for the institution of public prosecution violates the provisions of law.

B) There was no fact that the Defendant and the person who filed for the custody for the treatment and custody (hereinafter “Defendant”) administered the Meteptist during the period from October 18, 2016 to October 19, 2016.

However, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the charges by taking the written appraisal of the maternity taken by the investigative agency without the consent of the defendant as evidence.

Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the admissibility of illegally collected evidence, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) At the time of the crime of violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, the Defendant was in a state of mental and physical loss or mental weakness due to excessive drinking, mental illness, etc.

3) The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (the imprisonment of two months, the imprisonment of ten months, and the fine of 500,000 won, and the surcharge of 200,000 won) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant alleged to the effect that the lower court also asserted the Defendant’s factual misunderstanding, misunderstanding of the legal doctrine, and mental and physical disorder as alleged in this part, and the lower court rejected the above assertion in detail by providing a detailed judgment on the “judgment on the Defendant’s and his defense counsel’s assertion.” According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable,

B. As to each of the unlawful arguments of sentencing by the defendant and the prosecutor, the sentencing is statutory penalty.