The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The Defendant, as indicated in the facts charged in the instant case, did not have administered phiphones, and the detection of phiphones as a result of the Defendant’s urine examination, cannot be ruled out because it was due to the fact that the Defendant had taken a phiphones around that time, or that a third party administered phiphones to the Defendant.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

Even if the facts charged in the instant case on unreasonable sentencing are found guilty, the lower court’s punishment (one year of imprisonment, additional collection KRW 100,000) is too unreasonable.

The lower court’s judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts is 2.B. of “Judgment on the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion.”

Under the title of "as to whether or not to administer philograms", the defendant's assertion that the defendant's philograms were in response to the training of Melograms and Melograms as a result of the defendant's urine appraisal, there is no procedural defect in the appraisal process that the Melograms in excess of 200 ng/locks artificially flow into the urine submitted by the defendant, and the Melograms are not included in the output control that are sold among the time, and not the ingredients that can be generated through mixing of different substances within the body, and there is no minimum ground to doubt such possibility, so the charge of this case was proved without reasonable doubt.

Examining the above judgment of the court below in light of the evidence duly adopted and investigated, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is just and acceptable, and it erred by misapprehending the legal principles that affected the conclusion of the judgment.