The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

10,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (in fact-finding, violation of law and unreasonable sentencing) shall not be admissible as evidence of unlawful collection.

The Defendant did not administer philophones between October 20, 2017 and October 26, 2017.

Determination of punishment (one year of imprisonment and additional collection) is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On July 17, 2017, the Defendant prepared a drug inspection written consent to respond to various drug tests, such as urinals and maternity tests conducted from time to time by the probation officer, and submitted it to the Busan Probation Office.

On October 26, 2017, the Busan Probation Office B conducted a simple reagents test on the part of the defendant's arbitrarily submitted urine, and requested the Busan Scientific Investigation Agency of the Republic of Korea to a drug reaction test by sending 30 meters of the urine collected from the defendant to the Busan Scientific Investigation Agency of the Republic of Korea.

On October 30, 2017, the National Institute of Scientific Investigation prepared an appraisal report that the Metropia and the amtropia have detected as a result of the appraisal of 30 meters of the defendant's base.

The defense used in appraisal has been legally acquired, and the defense used in appraisal is also recognized as the defense taken from the defendant on October 26, 2017.

An appraisal document (the list of evidence submitted by the prosecutor) is admissible as evidence.

The judgment of the court below that adopted the written appraisal as evidence is not erroneous in violation of the Act on the Admissibility of Evidence and affected the judgment.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the charge on the ground that there was no philophone component from among the medicine that the Defendant used, and there was no philophone medication on October 26, 2017 without any fact of philophone medication.

Examining the record, the decision of the court below that recognized that the defendant administered a philophone between October 20, 2017 and October 26, 2017 is justified and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the fact to the judgment of right and wrong.

C. Ex officio determination is made by the Defendant on August 2018.