All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Improper sentencing of Defendant

B. According to the confessions made by the Defendant at the investigative agency of the Defendant and the testimony made by the witness G of the lower court, etc., the Defendant administered 22:00 on the first order of February 2016 at the guest room of Sacheon-si DNA 4 stories to 0.05g gramphonephones in the coffee.

It can be sufficiently recognized (misunderstanding of facts as to a non-criminal part). 2. Judgment

A. As to the facts charged in the case of the 2017 High Order 486 which the court below acquitted in the trial of the party, the prosecutor amended the indictment (in addition to the ancillary facts charged)

C. 1) An application for the amendment to Bill of Indictment was filed by adding the ancillary facts charged, and this court permitted this and changed the subject of the judgment.

However, since the previous facts charged prior to the amendment are changed from the trial to the primary facts charged by the prosecutor, the prosecutor's assertion that the prosecutor's mistake of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and then, I first examine the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts concerning the primary facts charged and then examine the ancillary

B. As to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts (the primary charges) 1), the summary of the public prosecutor’s office is not a narcotics handler.

On February 2, 2016, the Defendant, at the fourth-story guest room in Sacheon-si, Sacheon-si, the first day of which was 22:00, administered the Meatop (one philopon) 0.05g, which is a local mental medicine, in a cromatic drug, in a cromatic drug, in a cromatic method.

2) As evidence consistent with the facts charged in this part of the judgment, the defendant made a confession at an investigative agency (a protocol of interrogation of the defendant in the prosecution).

① However, the Defendant consistently denies the above facts charged from the lower court to the trial court, and ② the Defendant was under investigation as a crime of violating the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. other than this part of the facts charged, and the confession of the Defendant was made in the process of suspect interrogation based on G information, and ③ However, the confession of the Defendant was made in the process of suspect interrogation based on G information.