All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) The facts charged in this case’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles are invalid in violation of the provisions of law since the date, time, place, method, dose of medication cannot be specified.

(2) There is no fact that the Defendant administered Metephampis.

It is predicted that the detection of merpt cams from the defendant's side is that the merpt cams of the defendant, while the defendant was working at a entertainment establishment, could be inferred that the merpt cams of the defendant, or that the defendant purchased through the Internet and shot cambrop cams of the defendant's cambling.

(3) Even if the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing, even if it is recognized that the Defendant administered the Meptians, the lower court’s imprisonment (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant by the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The facts charged as to the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine must be stated clearly by specifying the time, date, place, and method of a crime (Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act). The purport of the law demanding the specification of the facts charged is to facilitate the Defendant’s exercise of the Defendant’s right to defense. As such, the facts charged are sufficient to include the facts constituting the crime in a manner that is distinguishable from other facts by comprehensively taking account of these elements, and even if the date, place, method, etc. of a crime are not specifically stated in the indictment, it does not go against the purport of the law allowing the specification of the facts charged, and if it is inevitable to indicate the facts charged in general in light of the nature of the crime charged, and it does not interfere

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do4671 Decided August 26, 2010). The probation period against the Defendant was the result of examining the urine taken by the probation office on February 5, 2013.