The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Of the facts charged in the instant case.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Legal principles and mistake of facts (as to the violation of the Narcotics Control Act (as to the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics) 1), the Defendant did not administer narcotics as stated in this part of the facts charged.

2) The evidence, such as a narcotics appraisal report, adopted as evidence of guilt at the lower court, cannot be readily concluded as evidence illegally collected without going through due process or as a result of the Defendant’s appraisal of the Defendant’s defense and hair.

Nevertheless, the court below found the admissibility of evidence and found the defendant guilty on the ground of this error in the misapprehension of legal principles and mistake of facts.

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

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

A. From May 15, 2017 to February 24, 2017, the Defendant: (a) dilutioned the non-explosion volume of the Memptopy (one philopon) drug at a fluoral area below Busan from around May 15, 2017 to administered the Defendant with a single-use injection device; and (b) dumping them into one’s arms.

B. 1) In order for an appraiser to have the scientific evidence method to be considerably binding in fact-finding, the fact that the appraiser conducted an analysis as a standard inspection method with professional knowledge, technology, and experience and submitted it to a court is insufficient. The identity of the sample in all processes, such as the collection, storage, and analysis of samples, should be recognized, and there should be no artificial manipulation, damage, or addition, and the records that can confirm the accurate procedure for taking over and taking over samples at each stage should be maintained (see Supreme Court Decision 2017Do1422, Feb. 8, 2018). B) The facts that the court duly adopted and investigated by the evidence and recognized by the court are revealed by the following circumstances, i.e., the amount of urine and hair continues.