The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

(e).

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On January 2014, the Defendant did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (misunderstanding of the fact, misunderstanding of the legal principles) and administered phiphones as stated in the instant facts charged.

The police statement statement of G in relation to G, which the court below used as evidence of guilt, was testified to the effect that G in relation to the stimulian was present as a witness on the trial date of the court below and the contents of the statement are not memory, and otherwise, it was not proven that the above statement statement was made in a reliable state, so the admissibility of evidence cannot be recognized pursuant to Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the remaining evidence alone is insufficient to recognize this part of the facts charged.

B. On July 2014, the Defendant did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the violation of the Narcotics Control Act (defluence of the fact, misunderstanding of the legal principles) and administered phiphones as stated in the instant facts charged.

In addition, this part of the facts charged should be dismissed because it cannot be viewed as a concrete fact entry meeting the requirements of Article 254 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

(c)

Even if the facts charged in the instant case are found guilty, the sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment and additional collection) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On January 2014, the summary of the facts charged is around 22:00 as of January 22, 2014, the Defendant, who was not a narcotics handler, administered the substance of the facts charged by inserting 0.03g of philopon into a one-time injection vehicle and dilution it with water in his/her own arms, even though he/she is not a narcotics handler.

2) The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged by comprehensively taking account of the following evidence.

3) Major evidence consistent with the facts charged in this part of the judgment of the political party, there are statements by the police officer against G and investigation reports on G (the statement of the offender committed in Gwangju District Office and replys to the results of appraisal).

First, the police against G.