The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal: ① The defendant recognized the crime at the time of the first interrogation and detention of the police officer; considering that the defendant was under the suspension of the execution period, the defendant’s assertion that he made a false confession according to the police officer’s advice is difficult to believe; ② at the prosecutor’s office and the court of the court below, the defendant stated that “E was in injection of the Defendant’s cellphone.” The defendant and E dialogueed to the purport that he would escape from the crypology at the protective observation office through L, and that the defendant searched the crypphone at the time when the defendant was recorded in the facts charged, and that the defendant searched the crypphone at his cell phone immediately after the crime of this case, it is credibility in the E’s statement; ③ The defendant’s response to the crypphone voice from the examination of the defendant’s defense and hair was not proven to be evidence that the defendant did not crypphone. Thus, the judgment below acquitted the defendant.

2. Determination:

A. The investigative agency requested the National Institute of Scientific Investigation to conduct a narcotics reaction test on the Defendant’s hair taken in order to verify whether the Defendant’s hair was administered. The National Institute of Scientific Investigation requested appraisal to the effect that the Defendant’s hair was not detected, even though all of the tests were conducted by the National Institute of Scientific Investigation, there were differences depending on the individual’s age, gender, race, nutritional condition, vehicle vehicle, etc., but when considering that the hair was at least 1 cm in the average month of the hair, it can be generally presumed that the period of the phiphone medication was calculated according to the length of the hair taken in the request for appraisal. Thus, the Defendant’s response to the above appraisal of the Defendant’s hair was not administered at least within the average period of time from the date of the extraction of the phiphone.