【Criminal Facts】

The Defendant, who is not a person handling narcotics, shall not trade, assist in the trade of, give or receive, possess, possess, use, manage, prepare, administer, administer, or provide, a psychotropic substance, a psychotropic substance (hereinafter referred to as “clopon”; hereinafter referred to as “copon”).

Nevertheless, the Defendant, on February 2015, 200, administered non-fluoron in a mutual influoral telephone in the Daegu Seo-gu merchants' Dong, Daegu-gu, in a way of dilutioning water into a single-use cluor, and then injection into his arms bloodline.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant consistently denies the instant facts charged from an investigative agency to this court.

B. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged in the record, i.e., (i) B was in an interest in opposite to the Defendant, such as reporting the Defendant to an investigation agency, (ii) was consistently denied the fact of suspicion, and (iii) the Defendant was unable to have an adequate opportunity for counter-examination as to the Defendant’s assertion because the Defendant did not have an adequate opportunity for counter-examination at an investigation agency even though the Defendant consistently denied the suspicion, the part related to the Defendant’s statement made by the police was deemed necessary to be strictly verified through cross-examination in the court. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant was made in a particularly reliable state.

Therefore, the admissibility of evidence under Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act cannot be acknowledged on the part concerning the statement related to the defendant among the copies of the police interrogation protocol regarding B.

C. An investigation report (a confirmation of the fact of training the suspect's cellphone in a separate case, No. 18 of the evidence list), police opinion(Evidence No. 19 of the evidence list).