Although the Defendant is not a narcotics handler, on March 20, 2016, the Defendant administered the meopopic dose of the Meopical amblopon (one ambopon), which is a medicine in the psychotropic spirit, in an irregular manner, at an insane place between Busan and Busan.

2. Determination

A. The prosecutor bears the burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial. The finding of guilt must be based on the evidence of probative value that makes the judge feel true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it shall be determined in the interests of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Do1568, Jul. 28, 2000; 200Do4946, Feb. 9, 2001). B. 1) Specific determination as evidence consistent with the facts charged in the instant case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 10Do1568, Feb. 1, 200; 200Do4946, Feb. 9, 2001; 3) statements in the court and investigation agency as well as a copy of the narcotics appraisal report.

2) In full view of the following circumstances, C’s statement is only the direct evidence that conforms to the facts charged in the instant case’s statement. In full view of the following circumstances, C’s statement has credibility to the extent that it can be found guilty of the instant facts charged without reasonable doubt.

It is difficult to readily conclude.

1. C The phrase “A” indicates that the Defendant, who was aware at an investigative agency, was fluent in front of the E located in the marine transportation Daegu D, and the Defendant was able to talk with the Defendant, and the Defendant was administered a philophone (a fluent one).

If so, why is, why is, brush

A statement was made to the effect that he was showing symptoms when he administered philophones.

However, in this Court, the “F is together with the place of promise.”