At around 00:10 on June 29, 2013, the Defendant granted and received approximately 0.06 g of psychotropic drugs, which are psychotropic drugs contained in a single-use injection machine, to C, on the front of a restaurant where the trade name near the creative prison located in the Changwon Muwon Muwon, is unknown.

2. The witness C and D’s legal statement as shown in the facts charged in the instant case, and the above witness’s statement at the investigative agency (D’s police statement as of September 3, 2013; C’s police statement as of October 1, 2013) and the telephone call details of the cell phone used by C at the time of the instant case (3 phone calls to the Defendant on June 28, 2013, and two text messages were sent).

However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, the above evidence cannot be deemed to have been believed, or the above evidence alone cannot be deemed to have been proven to the extent that there was a reasonable doubt as to the fact that the defendant delivered a phiphone to C as shown in the facts charged in this case.

① A around October 2013, even before being investigated by an investigative agency, C stated that “A person who received a philophones himself/herself stated that “A” was “A” and specified E pictures. From D around October 2013, the person who delivered the philophones at the time of the instant case reversed the statement that he/she is the Defendant. In light of the circumstances leading up to the reversal of the statement, C’s above statement cannot be trusted.

C The person who delivered a penphone to D with the foregoing opportunity to reverse the statement is E.