The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact-misunderstanding and legal principles that results in the reaction to the training of phiphones by the misunderstanding of the Defendant’s legal doctrine, it cannot be ruled out that it was due to the reduction of home source used due to the symptoms of philograms at the time of the above examination, and that the Defendant voluntarily attended the protective observation office around November 11, 2016, and carried out actions that could not have been performed if phiphones were administered on the 15th day of the same month, such as visiting the protective observation office by himself/herself and conducting philophones, etc., the Defendant’s assertion that the phiphones did not have been administered is sufficiently reliable.

B. As to the facts charged in the instant case, the date, place, method, etc. of the crime are specified.

shall not be deemed to exist.

However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty on the facts charged of this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misunderstanding of facts.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court also asserted the same as the grounds for appeal.

As to this, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion and sentenced the Defendant guilty on the facts charged of this case by comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court.

A) As to the Defendant’s assertion that there was no administration of philophones, there was a reaction of philophones as a result of a simple test of the Defendant’s urine conducted on November 15, 2016, and at the request of the National Institute of Scientific Investigation to appraise the Defendant’s urine on November 22, 2016, the National Institute of Scientific Investigation made use of the gas crotoma d/ mass analysis method with respect to the Defendant’s urines, which led to the reaction of philophones and amlophones, and ② the Defendant.