The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of the legal principles: The Defendant was illegally arrested after the naval investigation, was searched without a warrant, and forced to collect urines.

B. Sentencing: The sentence of the lower judgment (a year of imprisonment, and an additional collection of KRW 100,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the record, the following circumstances are recognized.

① The police officer informed the informant that “A while talking with the Defendant through a smartphone hosting program, the Defendant had a penphone and told that he/she could administer the program at his/her home.” The informant concealed the Defendant at a place where he/she talks with the Defendant.

② On April 9, 2017, the Defendant carried the informant on his own house, and the police officer carried the Defendant on his own house, and the police officer carried the Defendant on the charge of carrying the phiphone.

Police officers, at around 21:50 on the same day, seized 30 cc of the defense from the defendant at will and conducted a simple trial.

At the time of the search and seizure of chophones and the inspection of simplified reagents, the Defendant did not have a locker (18 to 24, 28 to 31) (the investigation record), (3) A person who was involved in reaction to train chophonescopon medication as a result of the inspection of simple reagents, and a police officer, at around 22:00 on the same day, immediately arrested the Defendant under suspicion of chophonescopon medication (13 pages of the trial record) (4). The Defendant has a history of having been sentenced to six suspended sentence and one one time of suspended sentence

2) In light of the above circumstances, it cannot be deemed an illegal naval investigation, as seen below, and it is lawful to seize defenses and immediately arrest, and the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

(1) The facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the original court are that the defendant administered a phiphone on one occasion, and that the informant is directly related to the investigation agency.

There is no evidence to see, even if so.

Even if the informant appeals against the defendant's dynamics or emotions by taking advantage of personal-friendly relationship with the defendant, or leads to a dynamics or emotional pressure or threat.