The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) confirms that the Defendant’s response to training as a result of the assessment of narcotics on the Defendant’s side and hair, C denies that the Defendant did not allow the Defendant to take the crophones, and C’s response to the voice reaction of c is confirmed as a result of the assessment on the c’s side, and the Defendant’s statement on the process of taking narcotics is inconsistent. In light of the above, the Defendant administered cphones as stated in the facts charged.

must be viewed.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment on the facts charged of this case.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below is based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below to the effect that there was a philopon training reaction in the body of the defendant on the date indicated in the facts charged in this case, since it appears that the philopon training had been carried into the body of the defendant on the date indicated in the facts charged in this case. However, in this case, the defendant consistently asserted that the philopon was not administered arbitrarily, and that C et al. had the defendant take the philopon, the following circumstances can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., ① a informant who cannot be identified, was informed of the fact that the philopon was witnessing the philopon in the body of the defendant on June 22, 2017, around 30:00, since the 15:00 on July 36, 2017, the defendant did not discover evidence related to the philopon taking the philopon.

. may be appointed.