The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The charge of misunderstanding the legal doctrine was specified

subsection (b) of this section.

2) The arrest of a flagrant offender against the accused is illegal, and his hair or urology is found to have been illegally arrested.

A narcotics appraisal report and a report on the results of identification on the evidence collected at request shall not be used as evidence of conviction.

3) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (one year of imprisonment and additional collection) is too heavy.

B. The Prosecutor’s (unfair sentencing)’s sentence is too minor.

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

A. Despite the fact-finding that the Defendant is not a narcotics handler, the Defendant, from October 13, 201 to October 22, 2017, administered chophones by means of inserting chophones (one chophones; hereinafter referred to as “phiphones”) in the non-fluoric volume (one chophones”; hereinafter referred to as “one chophones”), which is a local mental medicine, into a single injection machine, and dilution with water, from October 13, 2017 to October 22, 2017.

B. Judgment 1 on the argument of misunderstanding legal principles requires that the facts should be specified by specifying the time, date, place, and method of a crime. However, the time and date of a crime should be stated to the extent that it does not conflict with double prosecution or prescription. The purpose of the law requiring the specification of the facts charged by such elements is to facilitate the exercise of the defendant's right of defense. As such, it is sufficient that the facts constituting the elements of the facts charged are stated to the extent that it is distinguishable from other facts by comprehensively taking into account these elements. Furthermore, even if the time, place, etc. of a crime are not clearly stated in the indictment, the general indication is inevitable in light of the nature of the facts charged, and there is no obstacle to the defendant's exercise of his right of defense.