A. The Defendant, a mistake of facts, was administered by dilution the Mepta in water, but did not cause D to infect the Defendant’s arms in a way that would cause D to infect the Mepta.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment, additional collection) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, namely, ① the Defendant stated that D had D consistently in an investigative agency for injection of the Defendant’s arms, but reversed the statement that D had been administered by dilution with water at the trial stage, and ② the police seized a large number of injection devices at D’s residence, and the Defendant’s DNA was detected during the above injection period, the Defendant can be recognized as having D injection of the Defendant’s arms.

Therefore, we cannot accept the defendant's assertion of mistake.

B. The number of times when the defendant administered the Meptatopians is limited to one time.

However, the defendant does not have a high quality of crime by impairing the warrant of search, seizure and verification issued to administer Mepta and investigate whether or not to administer narcotics, and there is also a history of punishment as a suspended sentence of imprisonment for narcotics crimes.

In addition, narcotics crimes are highly likely to avoid the body and mind of an individual due to their toxicity, radio wave, etc. as well as harm the public health, and lead to other crimes, so there is a high need for punishment as social harm is high.

In addition, the age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and result of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime are shown in the records and arguments.