The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the testimony made by D to the investigation agency that conforms to the facts charged, it is difficult to believe that the above statement is reliable, even though it is reliable.

In light of the above legal principles, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court (a year of imprisonment, an additional collection of KRW 150,00) is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. In light of D’s legal statement and the content of the Defendant’s assertion after directly questioning D as a witness, the lower court found D not guilty on the ground that there is no other evidence to prove this part of the facts charged, and that this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no evidence to prove a crime.

B. The court did not submit new evidence, and the judgment of the court below was clearly erroneous.

There is no special circumstance to see, and even if the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below is examined closely by comparing it with the records of this case, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable (the prosecutor argues that the statement of the investigation agency of D is concrete so that it cannot be directly seen or experienced, but this part of the facts charged, i.e., the statement of D in the investigation agency of D concerning the administration of philopon, "the defendant was administered by means of inserting the philopon into the cronon in which the defendant was prepared for the dynasium and dilution it with water," and the statement of D concerning the administration of philopon in this part of the facts charged, i.e., the statement of D in the investigation agency of D concerning the administration of philopon," is merely a simple content that D having a previous record related to narcotics was able

Therefore, the prosecutor’s assertion is difficult to view.