Nevertheless, on May 31, 2016, around 11:05, the Defendant cultivated 380 franchising expenses, which are plants used as raw materials for narcotics, in the front garden subsequent to the dwelling of the Defendant in Ycheon-si C, without the approval of the Minister for Food and Drug Safety.

2. The gist of the defendant's change in the defendant's vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetables.

3. Determination

A. The burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial is to be borne by a public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on evidence of probative value, which makes a judge not having any reasonable doubt as to whether the facts charged are true. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant's guilt, the interest of the defendant is to be determined as the benefit of the defendant.

B. On May 31, 2016, it is found by police officers that the Defendant’s dwelling was 380 share price in the vegetable garden located behind the Defendant’s dwelling. As a result of the appraisal, it is recognized that the fact of detection of pin, Coin, Ltd., which is drug ingredients, was detected in the above vegetable garden.

(c)

However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the following circumstances are revealed.

In the investigation agency and this court, the defendant may know about the spawn agricultural company and what is the spawn cost, and the spawn is the spawn drug.

A statement was made to the effect that the fee for the vegetable garden did not have any reason to be extracted because it had been different from what it was.

The defendant is different only from 7-8 pages of the dwelling of the defendant.