The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and ten months.

8,100,000 won from the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on November 2012, 201, on the following grounds: (a) there was no fact that the Defendant, in collusion with F, either issued a philophone purchased from D or in collusion with F, included a approximately 0.1g of philophone in a single-use injection machine containing approximately 0.1g of philophones and administered philophones by melting philophones into the F’s arms blood cells; and (b) there was no fact that the Defendant administered

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years of imprisonment, additional collection of KRW 8.1 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. The summary of the facts charged in relation to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts was treated as follows, even though the Defendant is not a person handling narcotics, as follows.

On November 1, 2012, the Defendant added approximately 0.2g of 10 grams, purchased from D at the Defendant’s residence located in Ansan-si around 15:00, in which approximately 10g of 10g of philophones purchased from D, one out of the disposable injection machine for the first time, is f, free of charge, and administered a philophone in collusion with F in a way of inserting approximately 0.1g of philophones into a single-use injection machine containing approximately 0.1g of philophones, and then in collusion with F, melting philophones into the blood cells of F.

B. According to F’s statement at the trial of the judgment party, F did not receive a disposable injection containing 0.1g of phiphones from the Defendant as stated in the facts charged, or administered phiphones in collusion with the Defendant at the time and place indicated in the facts charged. According to the evidence additionally submitted by the prosecutor to the trial court, the facts charged in the instant case was prosecuted before an investigation into F, etc. was conducted, and the prosecutor thereafter arrested F and conducted an additional investigation, and then issued a disposition against F as to this part of the facts charged.

Therefore, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor is alone.