A. The Defendant of mistake of facts on March 2016 and the same year

4. The Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for a year by imprisonment with labor at the Incheon District Court on June 16, 2016 due to the fact that he/she administered a phiphone on May 16, 2016. However, due to the remaining parts of phiphones administered at the time of the crime, the reaction of phiphones was generated from the test of phiphones on July 27, 2016, and there was no fact that the Defendant administered phiphones after the date of the judgment above.

Nevertheless, the court below determined that the defendant administered philophones on the date and time border as stated in the facts charged without any direct evidence other than the above urgical evaluation result. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (one hundred months of imprisonment and one hundred thousand won of collection) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine the argument of misunderstanding of facts. In light of the reasoning of the court below, the court below's judgment that deemed the Defendant to have administered phiphones as stated in the judgment of the court below, and the defendant's urine collected on July 27, 2016 at the Incheon Probation Office, found phiphones ingredients from the defendant's urine. The surgical time of drugs differs depending on the type, gender, age, and surgical ability of the taken drugs, and is affected by the food and other drugs taken together, although the phiphones are not certain since they are affected by the food and other drugs taken in, the phiphones period is not more than 2 to 3 days in the first instance court, and not more than 7 to 10 days in the case of addicts, the judgment of the court below that deemed the Defendant to have administered phiphones as

B. We examine the judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and there is no change in circumstances that may consider the sentencing after the judgment of the court below, and considering the various sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments of this case, the circumstance in which the defendant asserts as the grounds for appeal.