1. The guilty part of the judgment of the court below is reversed.

2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months; and

3. A seizure.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The prosecutor (1) misunderstanding of facts (the acquittal part of the judgment of the court below) and the E’s statement in the investigation agency and the court of original instance, which correspond to this part of the facts charged, are consistent and reliable, while it is difficult to believe that each statement by the defendant and D is reversed continuously and it is improper to dismiss the credibility of the statement solely on the grounds that E’s statement does not match with the statement in the monetary content. Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of this part of the facts charged, even if it is found

(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment, confiscation, additional collection KRW 276,00) is too uneased and unreasonable.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (guilty part of the lower judgment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On November 4, 2013, at around 21:00, the Defendant: (1) received, without compensation, approximately 0.7 gramopons contained in D in a single-use injection instrument from D at the Lmotour room located in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government; (2) in other words, the Defendant administered approximately 0.1gopons by dilution them into a single-use injection instrument, and issued approximately 0.1gopon-phones to E and F, respectively.

(2) The summary of the Defendant’s assertion did not contain any receipt, medication, or provision of philophones as stated in the facts charged.

(3) (A) In a criminal trial, the recognition of a criminal fact ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which leads to a judge to have a reasonable doubt. Therefore, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the extent to have such convictions, the determination ought to be made in the interests of the defendant even if there is suspicion of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense contradictory to or without doubt.