All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not have administered philophones.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence (a year of imprisonment, confiscation, and collection) of the lower court is too minor.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts, the lower court acknowledged the fact that the Defendant administered phiphones by taking into account each of the records of seizure and the list of seizure, each photograph/cinematographic output, and each appraisal report, which are the duly admitted evidence.

The Defendant asserted that the Defendant’s reaction from an investigative agency to a trial of the party was only the detection of the drugs called Madnb, which the Defendant had been spatched in a usual manner. In response, in the first instance, the Defendant respondeded to the effect that the Madnb was detected of other narcotics ingredients than philopon, the Defendant asserted that the Madnbnb, which is a shipbuilding spatch, put himself into the ship.

However, the above assertion by the Defendant is difficult to believe in light of the following circumstances.

It is not easy to understand that the Defendant’s philophones have been detected in the entire urines and hairs of the Defendant, and that the Defendant, who had a record of the administration of philophones, has continuously administered philophones.

The defendant asserts that the investigative agency does not specifically state who is a drinking person in the philopon, but only in the first instance, it is doubtful that it is doubtful.

However, even if the defendant's assertion is based on the defendant's assertion, the drinking together with the two days before the escapeer and the arrest was conducted, and it was continued to have been done with the North Korean hub.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

In addition, a thorough examination of the original judgment and the record of evidence by the lower court does not seem to have any other reason to alter the original judgment.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. Regarding the prosecutor's improper assertion of sentencing, the court below's decision is a simple medication (the simple medication) and unfavorable to the prosecutor's argument.