Defendant

The appeal by the prosecutor is dismissed.

The statement of the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the fact of improper inspection of sentencing (non-indicted B) is specifically and consistently reliable, and around November 6, 2015, it is also consistent with objective circumstances, such as the telephone conversations with the Defendant, text message contents, and the location of the Defendant’s cell phone transmission.

Nevertheless, there is an error of misunderstanding the facts in the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant.

The lower court determined the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts of the prosecutor’s wrongful determination of sentencing: (1) while consistently denying the Defendant’s criminal act regarding the possession, provision, and medication of Mestopists in the investigative agency and the court of first instance on November 2015; (2) at the investigative agency and the court of law; and (3) on November 2015, the Defendant was urged by the Defendant from the first policeman, and was waiting for the Defendant in Samcheon-si P (Seocheon Q) at the time of Samcheon-si P (Scheon City Q) and then was able to look back to the Defendant at 22:00, the Defendant was administered together with the Defendant at 0.02g of Mestopianian who was in his possession by the Defendant at that place on around 22:0.

(2) However, according to the Defendant (R) and B’s cell phone call details, and the content of the confirmation by the branch of the call call, it appears that the Defendant and B did not appear to have existed at the time of death on November 2015, 2015. ③ The statements made by the investigation agency and the court of the court below are not consistent with the time of the crime, the circumstances leading up to the Defendant’s contact, where the Defendant returned home, where the Defendant was sent back, and where the Defendant was sent back, etc. ④ The results of gathering and appraising B’s urine and the voice response at the investigation agency around January 2016, 2015, based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is difficult to provide reasonable conviction without deliberation as to the charge of medication.

Based on the judgment of the court, the above facts charged were acquitted.

In the lower judgment, the lower court.