The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant did not administer a Mespopic copon (tentatively called “copon”; hereinafter “copon”) at the time and place indicated in the facts charged in the instant case.

The result of the urine test on the defendant showed a training reaction, because at that time, the defendant was suffering from a philophone, along with the Galphical stability system, and the defendant was suffering from a philophone, which was located in the balphale, regardless of such circumstances.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment, additional collection) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The Defendant asserted the assertion of misunderstanding of facts at the lower court, but the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion and its determination in detail in the written judgment. A thorough comparison with the evidential materials, the lower court’s determination is justified. 2) In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court and the lower court in the first instance court as stated in its reasoning, it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant administered philopon as indicated in the facts charged, and contrary to the Defendant’s assertion, it would be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant was administered, and that the Defendant was sent to B with the pharmacological stability, and that the possibility that philopon was contained in the balon paper would rather deviate from the bounds of reasonable deliberation.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

(1) If there is a request for appraisal by the head of the National Institute of Scientific Investigation that philophone ingredients were detected on the part of the defendant in a violation of the Narcotics Control Act, the urine, which is an experiment, was changed in the appraisal that served as the basis of the response.

Unless there are specific circumstances, such as mistake or error, the philophone component is written from the side taken by the defendant.