The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant is erroneous of facts from July 29, 2018 to the same year.

8. There has been no administration of philophones by July.

In addition, it is not clear whether the defendant was seized from the defendant or not, and even if the philophone component was detected in the body of the defendant, it is caused by the poppy of the defendant, so the defendant did not have intention to administer philophones.

B. The facts charged in the instant case by misapprehending the legal principles are widely indicated in the Defendant’s date and time, place, method of medication, etc., so the facts charged cannot be deemed to have been specified.

C. Even if the Defendant’s conviction is recognized, the lower court’s imprisonment (one year of imprisonment, additional collection KRW 100,000) is too unreasonable in light of various sentencing conditions.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. The first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts was the same assertion at the lower court, but the lower court, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated, determined that the Defendant administered phiphones as stated in the instant facts charged, and that the Defendant had the intent to commit the phiphone medication.

A police officer B, who collected a defense and hair from the Defendant, was present as a witness in the court of original instance, and stated that “at the time when the Defendant recommended the Defendant to submit a defense, the Defendant was informed of the informant at the time of the solicitation for the submission of the defense, the Defendant delayed the submission of a defense defense for about three hours. The attorney-at-law and telephone conversationsd the Defendant, and the attorney recommended the Defendant to cooperate in the execution of the warrant of seizure. The Defendant did not inform the informant after the call with the attorney-at-law, demanded that the informant be informed and did not cooperate, and that he submitted a defense by himself at C Hospital toilets for one hour after the call.”

The defendant is the defendant.