The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants are not guilty. The summary of each judgment against the Defendants is publicly announced.

1. The grounds for appeal (the factual error) found the Defendants guilty of all of the facts charged of this case on the grounds of the F’s statement without credibility, etc., although the Defendants did not receive philophones from F or administered F and philophones as stated in each of the facts charged of this case, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts that affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of each of the facts charged in the instant case is not a person handling narcotics, and thus, the Defendants are not allowed to trade, arrange the trade of, deliver, deliver, possess, possess, use, manage, prepare, administer, administer, or provide the psychotropic drugs.

1) At around 10:00 on November 8, 2012, the Defendant received approximately 0.5 g of a penphone, which is contained in a small plastic bag (Ga 2 m, vertical 3 mcm) from F from Jeju E building 607, at around 10:00, the Defendant received approximately 0.5 g of a penphone without compensation.

B) At around 10:00 on February 25, 2013, the Defendant received, without compensation, approximately 0.5g of a penphone 0.5g from F in small plastic bags (a 2 cm, vertical 3 cm) in one plastic bag (a 2 cm, vertical 3 cm). (c) around February 25, 2013, the Defendant 10 and 607 of the building E, together with F, put the aquatic disease into a raw water, put a water into a raw water disease, put up two tights into a water bag, put a 0.3g of a rophone into the lower part of the building, put a rophone into a rophone, put a rophone into a rophone, put a rophone back into a rodic bag, and putting the rophone back back into a rodic.

2) At around 10:40 on April 23, 2013, Defendant B administered phiphones using a inhaled tool manufactured in the same manner as G and F-C of the above E E building 607 (Ga and F). (B) The lower court determined that the lower court convicted Defendant B of each of the charges by comprehensively taking into account the witness F and G’s partial statement at the lower court’s court, each prosecutor’s protocol of evidence against H and I, each prosecutor’s office protocol of H and I, and drug appraisal statement (i.e., hair and conspiracy), and the table of request for appraisal.