beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. The Defendant is not a narcotics handler.
On October 20, 2018, from October 20 to October 29, 2018, the Defendant administered psychotropic drugs in a manner that does not identify the quantity of the psychotropic drugs, in which the amount of the psychotropic drugs cannot be known.
2. Determination
A. The Defendant asserts that there was no intentional medication of philophones on the same date and time as indicated in the instant facts charged from an investigative agency to this court.
B. According to the result of the drug reaction test and the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, it is recognized that the probation office's employee at the probation office's examination on October 29, 2018 on the Defendant's urine training results from the urine test on the two occasions. Accordingly, the probation office requested the National Institute of Scientific Investigation to appraise about 20 meters of the Defendant's urine training from the Defendant's urine, and as a result, the Defendant's urine training results from the urine training, and the period during which it is possible to assess whether the phiphone medication was administered through the urine test is about 30 minutes to 4 days of the medication, and the addict is about 7 to 10 days.
However, in light of the following circumstances admitted by the above evidence, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the facts charged in this case, which the defendant intentionally administered phiphones, was proven beyond reasonable doubt, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.
① On October 20, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years, probation, and a community service order of 120 hours in October for a violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. at the Daegu District Court on October 20, 201, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on October 28, 2017.
② From the above judgment became final and conclusive to October 18, 2018, the Defendant had undergone a regular drug test one to four times in one month at a probation office, and there was little training reaction as a result.