A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

10,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

The above additional charges are imposed on the defendant.

Punishment of the crime

Despite the fact that the Defendant is not a narcotics handler, from October 20, 2015 to October 30 of the same year, the Defendant administered the Metropopic dose of Metropha, which is a local mental medicine, in an irregular manner, from around October 20 to October 30 of the same year.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of the accused by the prosecution;

1. A copy of the narcotics appraisal report (the National Institute of Scientific Investigation);

1. Copies of the results of the drug reaction test;

1. A copy of a close inspection certificate;

1. Communication confirmation replies;

1. An investigation report (specific report on the date and time and place of crime of a suspect);

1. Determination on the defendant's assertion of the investigation report (report on the market price of narcotics)

1. The defendant alleged that he/she administered philophones by himself/herself during the period specified in the facts charged.

2. First of all, as to whether the facts charged were specified, the prosecutor specified the place of medication by analyzing the defendant's cell phone call area from October 20 to October 30 of the same year after considering the date and time of recovery of the meine from which the metropha's training reaction was taken (on October 30, 2015) and the period during which the metropha's medication was discharged to the urine (on October 30, 2015 to October 10 of the same year). In light of the background as stated in the above facts charged, and the characteristics of the crime of the metroph medication, the facts charged in the instant case can be recognized as having been specified to the extent that it does not infringe the defendant's right to defense.

Then, this paper deals with the date and time, place, whether the defendant administered the Meptist in the facts charged, and ① The National Institute of Scientific Investigation to the effect that the Meptist was detected in the defendant's urine. In the case of a reply to the request for appraisal, it should be recognized that the Meptist component was detected in the urine collected from the defendant.