The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The protocol of interrogation of the accused by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is prepared differently from the fact by the hearing and intimidation of the prosecution investigator while there is no prosecutor in charge, and thus, the narcotics appraisal protocol is not admissible, and it is based on the illegally collected evidence, so it is not admissible, or it is difficult to view that the identity of the sample is guaranteed in the process of collecting and keeping the defenses, and there is no probative value. Two copies of the protocol of interrogation of the prosecution suspect by D do not fall under the requirements of Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Thus, the defendant is not admissible, even though there is no record of administration of the Metecopty (hereinafter referred to as the “Mecopon”), and the court below convicted the defendant of the facts charged on the basis of the evidence without admissibility or probative value.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one hundred months of imprisonment, additional collection) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. As to the assertion of admissibility of evidence, the suspect interrogation protocol of the defendant prepared by the prosecutor against the defendant who is in attendance of the prosecutor's interrogation protocol against the defendant, was prepared at the end of the interrogation. The prosecutor prepared a suspect interrogation protocol stating the defendant who was the suspect in charge of the prosecutor's office and the assistant prosecutor's office did not attend the prosecutor's office, and examined the suspect interrogation protocol stating the defendant's statement to the effect that the prosecutor completed the investigation of the defendant and led to the defendant's confession. After examining the suspect interrogation protocol, the prosecutor in charge asked the defendant as to the suspect interrogation protocol as to the defendant's interrogation protocol as to whether it is true or not, as he was under investigation.