A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Punishment of the crime

On October 11, 2018, the Defendant: (a) around 08:20 on October 11, 2018, the damage was inflicted on the victim C (the age of 44) admitted in the same room as the Defendant in the Incheon Detention House B located in Michuhol-gu Incheon, Incheon, on the ground that the Defendant removed the tapes attached to the entrance, and (b) he saw the victim’s face, and took the bath, and caused the victim to suffer approximately 42 days of treatment.

Although the Defendant was not a narcotics handler, from August 25, 2018 to September 3, 2018, the Defendant administered the dose of psychotropic drugs, in an influorous manner, at the residence of the Defendant in Michuhol-gu Incheon, the Defendant’s head under subparagraph D, or at the location below the psychotropic drugs, by an influorous method.

Summary of Evidence

"2019 Highest 592"

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. A written statement of F and G;

1. Each injury diagnosis letter "2019 Highest 3502";

1. Partial statement of the suspect interrogation protocol of the accused by the prosecution;

1. A narcotics appraisal statement;

1. Determination as to the defendant and his/her defense counsel's assertion in an investigation report (the period during which phiphones can be detected from urines)

1. The summary of the assertion is that the Defendant administered the Mepta in such a way as not to memory the Mepta, because of the side effects of the Mepta that was prescribed at the time of the administration of the instant Mepta, and thus, caused the side effects of the Mepta and drugs.

However, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed as proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt about the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fence).

2. Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which provides for the principle of free evaluation of evidence, provides that the probative value of evidence shall be decided by the judge's free judgment is not because it is appropriate to discover substantial truth, but it does not mean that the judge's arbitrary judgment is accepted.