The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant, by misapprehending the legal principles, did not specify the date, place, method, etc. of the instant facts charged and thus, the indictment procedure becomes null and void in violation of the provisions of the law, the Defendant asserts that the lower court did not dismiss the prosecution on the instant facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In the facts charged in this case, the Defendant asserts that there was an error of law by misunderstanding the fact that the Defendant administered phiphones, as in the facts charged in this case, and that the detection of phiphones from the Defendant’s base was due to the fact that anyone who received philophones from D or D, which is not good between the Defendant and the Defendant, puts the Defendant’s drinking or drinking water into philophones, but otherwise, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Even if the Defendant is not a person handling narcotics, etc., the same year from September 13, 2014

9. Around 22.2. Around the same day, the psychotropic drugs-related psychotropic drugs-related Mesophacopic dose (hereinafter referred to as “mancopon”) was administered by means of injection or drinking.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by compiling the evidence as indicated in its judgment.

C. According to the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the allegation of 1 legal principles of the party deliberation, all circumstances presented by the court below are recognized.

In addition, (1) appraisal of whether to administer philophones using urines can be conducted from the date of administration for simple medication to 4 days from the date of administration for addicts, and from the date of administration for addicts to 7-10 days from the date of administration for addicts. In this case, the defendant was detected from the date of detection of philophones in the Defendant’s urphones, taking into account the fact that there