The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

Process of Litigation

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case and sentenced the Defendant to KRW 1 year and June, additional collection of KRW 100,000, and appealed on the grounds of mistake of facts.

B. Prior to the remand, the trial rejected the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts and rendered a judgment dismissing the Defendant’s appeal.

As to this, the defendant appealed for the same reason as the misunderstanding of the above facts.

(c)

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment below on the grounds that it erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the probative value of evidence which requires objective and scientific analysis, and by recognizing facts beyond the bounds of reasonable free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment, and remanded the case to the court of this case.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the prosecution procedure of this case is unlawful because the time, place, and method of medication are not specified at all; and (b) the police officer, who has been in charge of this case, sealed the urine and head scarcity in the absence of the defendant by submitting the head scarcity and urine from the defendant without the warrant; and (c) without complying with the due process as seen above, the results of appraisal by the National Science Investigation Research Institute requested for appraisal are inadmissible.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of violating the Act on the Management of Narcotics, Etc. in this case.

Judgment

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case was administered in such a way that the Defendant could not know at the time from September 17, 2016 to September 26, 2016, in a way that it is impossible to identify the number of crypters of a quantity that cannot be known at the place where the Seoul, Incheon, or the Dong-gu is unknown.

B. 1) The lower court’s determination is based on whether the facts charged are specified in the facts charged. The prosecutor’s decision is based on the Metea Patopian.