All appeals by the prosecutor and the defendant are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles) The lower court, without permission for changes in indictment, provided that the Defendant administered chophones in an irregular manner, contrary to the facts charged.

The recognition of this is illegal as it is not only does it specify criminal facts but also infringes on the defendant's right of defense.

B) The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, even though the defendant did not have administered a phiphone on his own, only when E administered a phiphone to the defendant.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. According to the statement made by the prosecutor and E in an investigative agency, the court below found the defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts, although the defendant was found to have administered the philopon to E.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty as to the Defendant’s assertion regarding the method of medication, and found the Defendant guilty as to the charge of the administration of phiphonephones, around September 18, 2015, the Defendant administered approximately 0.03 grams of Mepta (one philophone, hereinafter philophones), which is a local mental medicine in Gangnam-gu Seoul, by an irregular method, around 18:00 on September 18, 2015. Thus, the Defendant stated the method of administration in the process of committing the crime in an irregular manner.

As above, the elements of the crime of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc., which is the subject of judgment in this case, are clearly specified to the extent that the facts constituting the crime of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc., which is the subject of judgment in this case, can be identified to the extent that they can be identified from other facts. In light of the progress of the trial of the court below, the court below is erroneous.