Of the facts charged in the instant case, the charge of violation of the Narcotics Control Act around May 29, 2015 is acquitted. The instant facts charged.

Parts of innocence

1. The Defendant is not a narcotics handler.

On May 29, 2015, the Defendant administered a Megaculic c hotel H10B, which is a local mental medicine, in an irregular manner, around May 29, 2015.

2. The evidence that seems to correspond to this part of the facts charged is the result of the defendant's maternity appraisal (100 pages of evidence), the e-mail protocol (119 pages of evidence), and each investigation report prepared by the above C hotel managers.

The content of the above e-mail protocol was merely stated to the effect that "the defendant went to the room of the defendant on May 29, 2015, and the defendant showed abnormal illness in the defendant's room, but whether or not the defendant was to take narcotics", and each investigation report was also prepared on the basis of the abstract information of the informant who could not identify the above e-mail protocol and the above e-mail report, and the defendant actually administered the phiphone at the above date and at the above place.

there is no specific evidence that can be determined by the person.

In addition, the Defendant’s maternal test taken on June 8, 2015 showed a positive response from 2-1 m to 1 mm around her hair, and the investigative agency set the time of the crime on May 29, 2015 as stated in the e-mail protocol (Evidence No. 102 pages), but the Defendant’s urine taken on May 8, 2015, which took place together with the hair No. 1020, did not deny that the Defendant did not administer narcotics, and that the Defendant did not actively respond to the urine and the urine test. As seen earlier, on May 29, 2015, the investigative agency did not have any specific statement that there was a possibility that the Defendant had been exposed to narcotics at any other place.