However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

To the extent that the facts charged and the basic facts are identical and there is no concern about causing substantial disadvantages to the defendants' exercise of their right to defense, specific facts are partially recognized differently from the facts charged.

1. Around April 12, 1995, the Defendant was assigned to the Grade VIII prosecution clerk and transferred to the Grade VIII narcotics investigation officer around October 1, 1995. Since then, the Defendant served as a narcotics investigator in the K Local Public Prosecutor’s Office, the L Local Public Prosecutor’s Office, and the M Local Public Prosecutor’s Office, etc., and from May 19, 2014, the Defendant was discharged from office on March 6, 2017.

In practice, narcotics investigation officials including the defendant are investigating narcotics crimes and their offenders under the jurisdiction of the public prosecutor, under the direction of the public prosecutor without relationship with the agencies to which they belong.

On June 26, 2004, the Defendant served as a narcotics investigator at L District Public Prosecutor's Office (hereinafter referred to as L District Public Prosecutor's Office) and was investigated as a suspected violation of the Narcotics Control Act.

B became aware of the detention of B, and released B from L District Court on July 20, 204, one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, and two years of suspended sentence, and maintained the relationship between B and B and B, and one to two times of contact each year from the date of 2015.

Meanwhile, from August 20, 2007 to April 18, 2008, the Defendant was aware of the fact that he/she had exchanged with him/her, from around December 21, 2010 to around February 10, 201 that he/she had been living in the Kyang Prison as a violation of the Narcotics Control Act (fence) at each of the Kanyang Prison, and that he/she had been released from the prosecution, and that he/she had introduced B from other narcotics-related criminal offenders and persons N, and had them introduced B (after that B and N received sphones from each of the following around March and around August 2015). The Defendant was indicted on the grounds that he/she had been released from the prosecution on December 17, 2011 as a matter of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc., and that there was a high possibility that he/she had been released from the prosecution as a result of re-offending of the instant case.