The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The legality of a compulsory disposition, such as detention, search, seizure, etc., by which the prosecutor’s request for revocation of the suspension of execution was dismissed and the reasons for re-detained are not well known

In addition, a police officer was engaged in search and seizure when he takes the defendant into office within the night time, and the defendant did not read the search and seizure warrant at the time.

B. In regard to the administration of philophones, the Defendant did not have administered philophones on the date and time stated in the facts charged.

Although the Defendant’s scopon ingredients were detected in the Defendant’s scopphones, it cannot be ruled out because the Defendant’s scopon ingredients were generally used in various drugs that were mixed with anti-copon therapy at the time of the instant scopic test, in particular, China, etc., but the manufacturing method is unclear.

In addition, it is supported by the fact that, at the time of search and seizure of the Defendant’s residence, the Defendant administered a phiphone only in the past using a philosscis, and there was no scopher inscopic mechanism necessary for the administration of phiphones, ② the Defendant was subject to the observation of protection due to previous previous criminal records, and was found to have been subject to a drug reaction test on phiphones in the protective observation room. If the Defendant administered phiphones due to the cophers, the Defendant was present at the protective observation room and was not subject to a phiphonescopic test; ③ as a result of the Defendant’s assessment of her hairs, the Defendant did not detect phiphonescopic ingredients; and thereafter, in the drug reaction test on bophers, the Defendant did not have any phiphonescopic ingredients as stated in the facts charged.

With respect to the possession of dialphones, the Defendant carried the philophones in China around February 17, 2013.