All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Of the facts charged in the instant case of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, Defendant 1 cannot be deemed to have been identified as the facts charged because the date, place, and method of medication are not specified at all. There is no fact that the Defendant administered phiphones during the period from May 16, 2016 to May 23, 2016, and the Defendant’s procedure of seizure of the Defendant’s urine is unlawful, so the relevant evidence cannot be used as evidence because it constitutes illegally collected evidence. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (one year, four months of imprisonment and additional collection) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by the defendant

A. As to whether the facts charged are specified, the facts charged should be specified by specifying the time, date, place, and method of a crime (Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act). The purport of the law demanding the specification of the facts charged is to facilitate the exercise of the defendant’s right to defense. As such, the facts charged is sufficient if the facts constituting the crime are stated to the extent that it is recognizable from other facts by comprehensively taking account of these elements, and even if the date, place, method, etc. of a crime are not specified in the indictment, it does not go against the purport of the law allowing the specification of the facts charged, in light of the nature of the crime charged, and if the general indication is inevitable in light of the nature of the crime charged, and it does not interfere with the

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2694, Jun. 14, 2007). In light of the aforementioned legal doctrine, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, the Defendant’s urine extracted around 02:0 on May 23, 2016, when phiphone was detected from the Defendant’s urine taken on the basis of data on the period during which phiphone was administered and discharged from urine.