The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The Defendant is not a narcotics handler.

On April 11, 2018, around 00:44, the Defendant d and E inside the guest rooms of building C in Nam-gu, Nam-gu, Nam-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, with D and E, and 0.15g d and administered them by means of dilution with water.

2. Determination

A. The burden of proof for the criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial is to be borne by a public prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt is to be based on evidence with probative value that makes a judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it shall be determined in the interests of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do735, Apr. 27, 2006). (b) The defendant and the defense counsel asserted that the defendant refused the above proposal, while the defendant and the defense counsel suggested the administration of phiphonephones from D and D at the time of this case, they merely rejected the proposal, and that there is no fact that the defendant administered phiphones.

(c)

The direct evidence that corresponds to the facts charged in this case has a statement to E and D investigative agencies, and considering the following circumstances revealed in light of the facts acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, each of the above facts alone was proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt that the above facts charged are proven.

The facts charged cannot be seen, and the other evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone are insufficient to recognize the facts charged, and there is no other evidence to prove it.

1) “E” in this Court, because the Defendant was the person who administered philophones from D, the Defendant also administered philophones at the time of this case at the investigative agency.

A statement was made.

In fact, at the time of this case, the defendant philophones.