The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of the facts charged

A. Notwithstanding that the Defendant is not a person handling narcotics, around June 2012, the Defendant issued approximately 0.03 g of the psychotropic drugs-related Mebane (hereinafter “Mebphone”) to D from 101 Dong-dong 1905, Busan, Busan.

B. On July 2012, the Defendant: (a) stored raw water in a disposable injection machine containing approximately 0.1g of c apartment 101 and 1905 of crophones; (b) injected crophones into one’s arms after dilution; and (c) administered them by means of injection into one’s arms.

C. The above B.

At the same time and at the same place as Paragraph 1, a philophone was issued in such a way as to put aquatic water into a disposable injection machine containing approximately 0.1g of philophones and dilution the philophones, and in a way as to injecting it in lieu of E’s arms.

2. Determination:

(a)(a);

1) As to the facts charged, there are statements and investigation reports in D's investigative agencies and in this court (the attachment of judgment of the first instance court to D and E). However, since the defendant denies the contents in this court, the protocol of interrogation of the police as to D's interrogation of the suspect to the defendant is inadmissible, and it cannot be admitted as evidence.

Article 312 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act applies to cases where an investigative agency other than a public prosecutor adopts an interrogation protocol of a suspect against another defendant or a suspect who is in a co-offender relationship with the defendant as evidence of conviction against the defendant. In the case of this part of the facts charged, since the defendant and D are in a so-called hostile accomplice relationship with the defendant given and received a penphone, Article 312 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act applies to cases where it is adopted as evidence of guilt against the defendant.

Therefore, even if the authenticity of the formation is recognized by D's legal statement, the admissibility of evidence is denied as long as the defendant denies the contents of the protocol on the trial date.

3. And D's statements and the above investigation reports in the prosecution and this court are also made by D's defendants.