The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Violation 1 of the Notarial Rule 1) A urine test conducted on the Defendant (in particular, the part on the reaction test of cancer pestes) constitutes an investigation because it is not directly related to emergency relief, and thus, a prosecutor must obtain the consent of the Defendant or obtain a lawful warrant, and without such consent or warrant, be conducted.

The examination results, etc. are all illegally collected evidence and inadmissible as evidence.

2) The equipment discovered in the house of the defendant is also found through a search without warrant, and all related statements are inadmissible as they are based on illegal search.

B. The Defendant, as to the date and time stated in the instant facts charged, was taking advantage of several drugs, and did not constitute a fact that he administered Mepta, such as the facts charged.

(c)

The punishment (one year and six months of imprisonment, additional collection) sentenced by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of violation of the rules of evidence 1) urology

The term "emergency patient" in Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Emergency Medical Service Act (hereinafter "Emergency Medical Service Act") means a patient or a person corresponding thereto, who is unable to preserve his/her life or is likely to cause serious mental or physical harm unless he/she immediately receives necessary emergency measures due to illness, childbirth, various accidents and accidents, or other emergencies, and is determined by Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare, as follows:

Article 9, Article 9, Article 9 (Emergency Medical Service) of the Emergency Medical Service Act.