The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below found the defendant not guilty of the fact of the medication on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge it, in full view of the fact that the philophone component was detected in the defendant's hair, and the defendant's text, etc. was fully recognized, even if the defendant had administered the philophone.

B. The sentence that the court below rendered unfair sentencing (the imprisonment of eight months, the suspension of the execution of two years, the observation of protection, 40 hours of lectures for treatment of malicious addiction, community service 120 hours) is excessively uneased and unreasonable.

2. Judgment ex officio (as to the acquittal portion of the judgment below)

A. The gist of this part of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant, despite being not a narcotics handler, from January 1, 2016 to January 2016.

4. From the Defendant’s house living with H located in the Bupyeong-gu Incheon Bupyeong-gu J and 202, the Defendant’s house living together with H was administered by inserting a large amount of chron (one philopon; hereinafter “philopon”) into a single-use injection machine and dilution it into the body, and in the process of injection into the body.

B. In light of the following circumstances, the lower court determined that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, in the instant case where the Defendant consistently denied medication from the police to the court of the lower court, is insufficient to acknowledge the fact of medication as stated in this part of the facts charged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

1) In the case of L and M’s respective statements, the Defendant is not related to the instant medication crime with a statement that the Defendant would not sell phiphones.

2) H consistently makes a statement to the effect that “The Defendant living together with the Defendant from the end of January 2014 to the end of March 2016 did not administer or handle phiphones.”

3) Although H and the defendant who has administered philophones are in resistant relations and whose statements are contrary to the statements of other witnesses, the statement cannot be believed as it is. However, the statement is made by H.