The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On December 25, 2016, the misunderstanding of the fact of the administration of transphones was made by mistake B, at the time, using a injection device to the Defendant’s arms in order to administer transphones. However, at the time of the first injection, B made several mistakes in places other than the Defendant’s arms blood transfusion, and eventually failed to provide a proper injection to the bloodline.

At the time, the Defendant talked that he did not harm B’s color, but the fact that the Defendant was not administered a philopon on the Defendant’s arm’s length room.

B. The lower court collected KRW 800,000, which is the value of the penphones offered for the Defendant’s purchase of the penphones, and KRW 100,000,000, which is the value of the penphones offered for the administration of the penphones on January 2, 2017. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the collection of additional charges, since the penphones offered for the administration of the penphones on January 2, 2017 were part of the penphones purchased as above, and thus, additionally collected KRW 100,00,00, which is the value of the penphones offered for the administration of the horse on January 2, 2017.

(c)

The punishment of the lower court (a year of imprisonment, 900,000 won additional collection) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. On December 25, 2016, the court below duly adopted and examined the following evidence: (a) as to the assertion of misunderstanding of the fact about the administration of oponononon around December 25, 2016; (b) the Defendant sent the Defendant to H with respect to oponon that he/she administered from around 14:43 to 15:35 on December 25, 2016, the crime of medication in this part; and (c) the content of the message sent to H (i.e., she died at the same time, she was killed; (b) “Won infection,” “stroke,” and (d) the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the Defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that opon was administered at the time specified in this part of the facts charged. Accordingly, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

B. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles on collection, the following circumstances, which can be known by each of the above evidence, are the same.