The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant had been living together with B, F, etc., but at that time he did not know of the fact that she had been administered and left after dilution of salopphone into beverages, and did not have an intention to administer alopphones.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant intentionally administered phiphones by misunderstanding that he/she believed the testimony of a witness without credibility.

B. The lower court’s sentence on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment with prison labor for August suspension, two years of collection, and three hundred thousand won of collection) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for not more than four months for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint conflict) at the Seoul Western District Court on July 26, 2018, and the judgment on November 9, 2018 became final and conclusive.

The crime of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. and the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. (Joint Bribery) for which a judgment has become final and conclusive on the defendant is concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and in consideration of equity in cases where a judgment is rendered at the same time pursuant to the main sentence of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, a sentence shall be imposed on the crime of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc

However, the defendant's assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of the court, and the following is examined.

3. The following facts can be acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court in determining the assertion of mistake of facts.

(1) H shall be asked at the investigative agency and the court below’s decision on the grounds that he informed the Defendant of the administration of narcotics to the police station, the reason why the Defendant told the Defendant of the administration of narcotics, etc., by asking for the whitening that he administered the narcotics by the investigative agency and the court below.