All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In order to clarify the reasons for the prosecutor’s final appeal, the maternal appraisal of narcotics can function as variables by external factors, such as the conditions of the examination. As a result, the presumption of the period of medication based on the results is premised on the fact that the growth speed of hair is fixed, but in fact there is a big difference depending on an individual, and even if the same person is in fact, there is a difference depending on the recovery level of hair, health condition, etc., and even the collected hair, it is difficult for the same person to trust its accuracy due to the combination of the hairs during the growth period, the suspension period, and the early departure stage.

In addition, in light of the fact that it is difficult to deny the possibility of medication several times during that period in light of the characteristics of the narcotics medication crime, the presumption of the period of medication based on the results of one maternity test may significantly interfere with the defendant's exercise of his right to defense, and it may also be difficult to determine the extent to which the effect of double prosecution or absence of one-time, in view of the nature of the narcotics medication crime, which constitutes a separate crime, is limited to every time of medication.

Therefore, it should be prudent to determine whether the Defendant was guilty and presumed guilty on the basis of only the results of the crypology appraisal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do11817, Apr. 26, 2012). The lower court is insufficient to specify that the time when the instant Defendant administered cypphones as indicated in the instant facts charged is between October 3, 2014 and October 13, 2014, as indicated in the instant facts charged.

Furthermore, on the grounds that there is no proof of criminal facts as to the facts charged in this case against Defendant B, based on the various circumstances as stated in its reasoning, the court acquitted Defendant B.

The judgment below

The above legal principles and records.