10,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

The additional collection charge shall be equivalent to the above additional collection charge.

From April 12, 2018 to around the 19th day of the same month, the Defendant administered a psychotropic drug dose by an inseption method at a place where it is impossible to know the source of steel (hereinafter referred to as Gangwon-gu).

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of the witness B;

1. Each investigation report (related to the suspect's assertion for taking advantage of the truth-control, a doctor's search and investigation, relation to the results of appraisal by the National Institute of Scientific and Investigative Research, and calculation of additional charges);

1. The application of probation cards and situations, and the Acts and subordinate statutes of a narcotics appraisal report;

1. Article 60 (1) 2, Article 4 (1) 1, and subparagraph 3 (b) of Article 2 of the Act on the elective Management of Narcotics, Etc. concerning Criminal Facts and the Selection of Punishment;

1. The proviso to Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act;

1. Judgment on the assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Summary of the assertion

A. It cannot be said that the facts charged in this case are sufficiently specified in the facts charged to the extent that it could interfere with the defendant's exercise of right of defense.

B. The Defendant, who had no fact of the administration of phiphones, did not have any reaction to training phiphones on April 19, 2018 as a result of the urine test on April 19, 2018, but there was no actual administration of phiphones around that time.

2. Determination:

A. As to whether the facts charged are specified, the time and place of a crime should be specified by specifying the facts. As such, the time and place of a crime does not conflict with those of double prosecution or prescription, and the place should be stated to the extent that it does not conflict with the territorial jurisdiction, and the purpose of the law requiring the specification of the facts charged is to facilitate the exercise of the defendant’s right to defense. As such, it is sufficient that the facts charged are stated to the extent that the facts constituting the elements of a crime are distinguishable from other facts in light of these factors, and the time and place of a crime are specified in the indictment.