The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, as indicated in paragraph (2) of the facts constituting a crime in the lower judgment, recognized the fact that the Defendant administered approximately 0.03 g of Mesopha (hereinafter “Mesophopon”) on October 20, 2013, as indicated in the judgment of the lower court.

On the other hand, on October 21, 2013, in order for the Defendant’s wife K to voluntarily surrenders the Defendant, a report was filed with an investigative agency on the fact of the Defendant’s phiphone medication on the preceding day. On October 30, 2013, the Defendant was arrested and investigated by the police around October 30, 2013, and recognized that the Defendant’s wife was administered a phiphone on the day when the Defendant’s wife was reported by the police. On the wind, the date of the report was detected by the investigative agency on October 13, 2013, and the Defendant was investigated as a phiphone medication even on October 13, 2013.

However, if the Defendant administered a philophone on October 13, 2013, a police officer who investigated the Defendant: (a) had the Defendant administered a philophone, the police officer asked him/her that the philophone training reaction cannot be caused from the philophone training from the urine prosecutor conducted on October 30, 2013; and (b) the Defendant stated that he/she would be punished with severe punishment on the ground that he/she denied the crime, and that he/she administered a philophone on two occasions on October 13 and October 26, 2013.

Accordingly, the Defendant was indicted for committing a crime on October 13, 2013 and October 26, 2013 on two occasions. On the trial date of the lower court, the Defendant changed the time when the phone was administered on October 26, 2013 to October 20, 2013.

However, the Defendant merely administered philophones once on October 20, 2013, which is the day before the Defendant’s wife reported. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of all the facts charged including the facts charged on October 13, 2013, in addition to the facts charged on philophones administered on October 20, 2013.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts.