The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

20,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

1. In full view of the evidence duly submitted by the prosecutor, that is, the E’s statement to investigation agency, and the Defendant’s physical examination result, etc., the court below found the Defendant to have administered phiphones as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, but found the Defendant not guilty by finding the fact erroneous.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant is not a narcotics handler.

1) At around 06:00 on March 31, 2012, the Defendant, along with E, administered one-time medication of psychotropic drugs at the guest room in Yeonsu-gu Incheon, Yeonsu-gu, Incheon, by inserting them into a single-time injection instrument, dilution into each of their arms in a single-use injection instrument, and injection into each of them. (ii) The Defendant, at around 10:00 on the same day, administered one-time medication with E at the same place, at the same time as E.

B. The lower court determined that the Defendant was acquitted on the ground that, as evidence consistent with the above facts charged, although there was a statement in E’s investigative agency as evidence, the situation at the time of the crime and the progress before and after the crime are not consistent, and that the statement in E’s investigative agency is false by attending the investigative agency as a witness in the court of the lower court. In light of this, the Defendant’s statement in E’s investigative agency cannot be trusted, and the Defendant’s physical appearance response was made, but the result of such appraisal alone is insufficient to find the Defendant guilty of the above facts charged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Accordingly, the instant

C. First of all, we examine the credibility of each of the statements made by E in investigative agencies and courts.

E, as stated in the facts charged in this case, the investigative agency stated that philophones were administered twice together with the defendant, but the court below and the court of the trial.