All appeals filed by A and prosecutor are dismissed.

A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of fact-finding, the Defendants conspired with each other, and then acknowledged the fact that the Defendant A administered the Metecopon (hereinafter “Mecopon”) on May 14, 2020 to Defendant B (hereinafter “Mecopon”), but the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts of not guilty.

B. As to each sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (defendant A: imprisonment of one and half years, confiscation, additional collection, and fine of five million won, additional collection), Defendant A asserts that the sentence is too unreasonable because it is too unreasonable, and the prosecutor asserts that the sentence against the Defendants is too uneasible and unfair.

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the Prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts, this part of the facts charged was proven beyond a reasonable doubt only by the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor.

It is difficult to see it.

Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake is rejected.

A. In the police investigation, Defendant A did not administer philophones on May 14, 2020.

Defendant B administered philopon in the prosecution investigation.

was stated.

Defendant

A, at the time of the police investigation as to the background leading up to the reversal of the statement, Defendant B: (a) memoryed that Defendant B did not administer phiphones on May 14, 2020; and (b) denied this part of the facts charged; (c) at the time of the investigation by the prosecution, Defendant B admitted this part of the facts charged; and (d) under the circumstances where Defendant B recognized the medication, Defendant B made a statement of confession by deeming that the administration of Defendant B would not be favorable to Defendant B.

In light of the above process and circumstances of the reversal of Defendant A’s statement, Defendant A’s above prosecutorial statement followed the original court’s legal statement.