The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Although the Defendant did not deliver a philophone to D as stated in the facts constituting an offense in the lower judgment, the lower court convicted the Defendant by misunderstanding the facts and thereby pronounced the Defendant guilty.

2. The Defendant is not a person handling narcotics, etc. of this case.

Nevertheless, around 14:00 on July 21, 2012, the Defendant received one of the disposable injection equipment containing 0.05 g psychotropic drugs from D around the food store of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Seoul Metropolitan Government Seoul, by transferring D psychotropic drugs to 0.05 g, free of charge.

3. Determination

A. In a criminal trial, the burden of proof for the facts constituting an offense prosecuted is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on the evidence of probative value that makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant, it shall be determined with the benefit of the defendant.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do7261 Decided November 10, 2011, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do7261).

The direct evidence consistent with the facts charged in the instant case is the only statement in D’s court and the investigative agency’s statement. In light of the legal principles as seen earlier and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below and the court below, it is difficult to believe that D’s respective statements are reliable.

Around 14:00 on July 21, 2012, the court below and the investigative agency stated to the effect that the defendant was parked in front of the food store "tomato" in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, the birth date of his own letter, and that the defendant was a gift of a sports uniform to himself at his own seat, and that the defendant was divingd, and that he was a disposable injection with a philopon."

However, the defendant is from the investigative agency to the court of first instance.