The defendant's appeal against the first instance judgment is dismissed.

The second original judgment shall be reversed.

The facts charged of this case.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the judgment of the court below on the erroneous determination of facts, the Defendant did not administer a mert crypists on October 2016, 2016.

B. The punishment of the lower court (one year of imprisonment) and that of the second instance court (one year and two months of imprisonment) on the grounds that it is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As evidence consistent with the judgment of the court below of the second instance on the assertion of mistake of facts, there is a letter of appraisal of the National Institute of Scientific Investigation of the defense and its hair.

However, in light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the records of this case, the possibility that the Defendant was mixed with the urines of the urines, which were submitted by the Defendant for a close inspection on November 1, 2016, cannot be ruled out. In other words, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant administered the Mepta in a patrolman on October 2016.

Therefore, on October 2016, the facts charged by the judgment of the court below of the second instance, the facts charged by the judgment of the court below should be pronounced not guilty because it falls under the case where there is no proof of crime and thus, it constitutes an unlawful act that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts charged.

The defendant's above assertion is with merit.

(1) The Defendant was regularly subject to a minor simplified medicine test to verify drug ingredients at a probation office, and was judged to have a voice on August 24, 2016.

② Even if the Defendant’s urine simplified examination was conducted on November 1, 2016, the philophone was not detected.

(3) On November 1, 2016, the narcotics appraisal results of the National Institute of Scientific Investigation on a disposable dives confiscated in the Defendant’s residence were not detected.

④ On November 1, 2016, the Defendant’s hair was taken from the two sides to the 9cm length in a way that the Defendant’s hair was cut off from the two sides to the upper part, and the phiphone was detected in the entire section divided by 3 cm.

However, considering the age of the defendant, the growth speed of the defendant is average 1 cm.