The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not have administered philophones on the date and time stated in the facts charged.

B. The misapprehension of the legal principle alone cannot be deemed as having specified the facts charged.

C. The sentence imposed by the lower court (4 months of imprisonment and 8 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) In the case of a fact-finding inquiry by the Director of the National Institute of Scientific Investigation and Investigation that the Mesacam was detected in the defendant's conspiracy in the case of violation of the Psychotropic Drugs Control Act, the conspiracy, the test object, was changed in the appraisal that served as the basis of the response.

Unless there are specific circumstances, such as that there was a mistake or error, it should be recognized that the Mesacopic ingredient was detected in the hair taken from the Defendant, and therefore, in accordance with the rule of logic and experience, the Defendant should be recognized as having administered the Mesacopic Mescopic Mescopic Mes before collecting the Mascopic subject to appraisal.

(Supreme Court Decision 94Do1680 Decided December 9, 1994). According to the record, the following facts are recognized: (a) Meshethoception and ambamination were detected in the urine collected from the Defendant on May 18, 2018; and (b) Methoception and ambamination were detected in the urine and ambamination collected on February 20, 2019.

In the process, the hair or urine, which is an experiment, was changed to another person.

There was no specific circumstance such as error in appraisal.

Examining the above circumstances and various circumstances indicated in the record in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant administered phiphones on the date and time stated in the facts charged, so this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

B. The facts charged (i.e., the date, place, and method of crime should be specified in the judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle’s assertion.