The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant did not have administered philophones on his own, and from the result of the appraisal of philophones, the reaction of philophones was caused by arculon’s culphical reaction, because arcule included philophones in the Defendant’s remaining culphal, etc. (hereinafter “Sloculon”). In addition, the Defendant did not possess philophones

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the administration and possession of the instant phiphones, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged, despite the fact that the Defendant is not a narcotics handler, the Defendant administered phiphones with the Defendant’s culpphones (one culpphone; hereinafter “philophones”), which is a local mental medicine in the area below Busan from September 26, 2016 to October 5, 2016, by dilution the culpphones with water (one culpphones equivalent to one culpon), and using the reculpology for injection with the Defendant’s arms.

In addition, around 06:40 on October 5, 2016, there was a philophone in a way that takes up and keeps approximately 1.41g of philophones, a local mental medicine, into two types of philophones, the bath 202 hotel E in Busan Jin-gu, Busan, in a manner that takes part of approximately 1.41g of philophones.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the aforementioned facts charged by compiling the following evidence. It seems that the Defendant’s urine recovered on October 5, 2016 and the Defendant’s urine training reaction occurred from the hair of the extracted Defendant, and that the Eurher 202 was discovered at the time of the Defendant’s arrest, and the phiphone was detected from the urine, and there was a trace of injection in the Defendant’s arms, and that there was a trace of injection in the Defendant’s arms on October 8, 2006.

(c)

The defendant's assertion on the above facts charged is a penphone.