The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

A sum of KRW 100,00 shall be collected from the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The Defendant did not have administered narcotics as indicated in the facts charged in the instant case. However, the Defendant was only dysnating alcohol in which L, the Defendant’s wife, dysculon, performed dysing alcohol in order to administer hysulon, and there was no intention to administer hysulon.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the following grounds.

A) A response was made to the training of philophones in the hair and urine taken from the Defendant.

This is a fact confirmed by the scientific evidence method, through which the defendant naturally inferred the fact that he administered narcotics through the injection machine, etc., and in other cases except the fact that he administered the narcotics by himself (the administration by the de facto trees, the administration by force of another person, etc.) can not easily reverse the fact that the defendant administered the narcotics by himself, in light of sound social norms, since it is extremely rare circumstances in light of the fact that it is difficult to reasonably present it, it is difficult to see that the defendant was administered by the evidence of passive circumstances that may be anti-proof due to various variables.

Furthermore, the defendant's son, living together with the defendant, described in detail the defendant's increase in the capital by the administration of philophones, and the defendant administered philophones.

Not only reported but also the hole of medication (in its own hole of sale).

The statement of C is strongly supported by the defendant's oral evidence method.

B) L was on the part of the Defendant when drinking alcohol together with the Defendant, and L was on the part of beer and beer, and the Defendant was unaware of it.

However, this statement is given in light of the following circumstances: