(a) The amount of philophones administered by the Defendant for misunderstanding of facts does not extend to 0.03 grams of the facts charged;

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment and one hundred thousand won of surcharge) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant stated at an investigative agency that ① 0.03g of a small eye for a single-use injection was administered, so the defendant stated that the degree of 0.03g of a small eye for a single-use injection was the same (the investigative record No. 136 pages), ② specifically committed the crime, the defendant stated that he was administered by inserting approximately 0.03g of a philopon in a single-use injection machine, melting it into water in a single-use injection machine (the investigative record No. 149 pages), ③ statement that the quantity of a single-use injection was 0.03g of a single-use arm's blood, etc. (the investigative record No. 151 pages). According to these circumstances, the amount of the penphone administered by the defendant is sufficiently recognized as 0.3g of a single-use medication.

Therefore, the court below's finding the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case by recognizing the amount of philophones administered by the Defendant as 0.03g, is just and acceptable, and there is no error of mistake of facts alleged by the Defendant.

B. The circumstances are recognized, such as the fact that the Defendant was involved in the administration of one time, the transfer of administered phiphones, the fact that the Defendant was starting the instant crime, and the fact that the Defendant appears to have caused the instant crime under the somewhat insufficient judgment or decision-making capacity.

However, the defendant has been punished several times due to the crime of narcotics, etc., and the crime of this case also commits a repeated crime due to the same crime.