The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds of appeal is that the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts, and even if the defendant does not do so, the sentencing of the court below (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable, because it is too unreasonable, even though it is not so long as there is no fact that the defendant had a scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopical evidence

2. Determination

A. The Defendant alleged that there was no philophone in itself on the beer, which he had D, as consistent with the investigation agency. However, in full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the following circumstances revealed therefrom, the Defendant’s fact that D had D, as at the time of the instant case, had D, put philophone into beer and administered, is sufficiently recognized.

① The instant crime began when the Defendant reported D to the police police as a suspicion of scopon medication.

However, when D denies the fact of medication and the defendant stated that he was the same as he reported on the medication of philophones, the defendant, while making a false statement during a period of time that he did not report, recognized that he was the subject of the objective circumstances that the defendant reported.

In addition, the reason for the report was explained that D had been seen to have been administered with philophones.

② On the other hand, D consistently stated from the beginning of the investigation that he did not directly scam the phiphones, that he had been scambling with the Defendant before licking, that he had been scambling, and that he had consistently issued a warning that he would report to the police after that day.

③ D was subject to the urine and hair test by the police, and the reaction of philophone training was made in the urine, and the voice reaction was made in the hair (as approximately 12-13 cm).

If so, D administered a philophone at least once.