The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the above judgment shall be publicly notified.

1. The Defendant is not a narcotics handler.

On October 11, 2017, the Defendant administered C’s singing rooms located in Jinju City B, and administered approximately 0.03g of Masphers, a local mental medicine, in a manner of burning to be delivered to beer and beer.

2. Determination

A. The date and place of the defendant's and his defense counsel's assertion

D putting Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa,

B. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances based on the results of the examination of evidence, the evidence alone submitted by the prosecutor is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant was intentional.

① The Defendant consistently denied intention during the investigation process up to this Court, and consistently complained of the detention of another person, following the fact that he/she is mixed with drinking crypists, even when the Defendant was detained.

(2) Of course, the defendant shows that Dmers ambamins themselves in the police investigation process.

After that, in the prosecution investigation process, annoyed statement has been revealed, such as making a statement to the effect that such a face is not observed or that the fact he/she made such a speech is not memory, but even if D shows Mesaves against the defendant, the defendant was able to know that he/she is mixed with Mesaves against the defendant even if it was true that D shows Mesaves against the defendant.

not be deemed to be the case.

③ In general, the assertion that the Defendant was unaware of the influence of drinking drugs is believed. However, in this case, D calls immediately after the Defendant was arrested, and D calls to the police station immediately and the risk of the Defendant’s punishment and statements consistent with the Defendant’s assertion.