The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

However, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal (in fact-finding), the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of the instant case on a different premise, on the ground that the Defendant was found to have administered phiphones at the time and place indicated in the facts charged of the instant case.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant was living together with B at the residence of B on February 11, 2016, and the Defendant’s response to “training” in the urine as a result of an appraisal on the urine and hair voluntarily submitted by the Defendant on the same day, in the urine, from the hair, the reaction from the hair was occurred, and the Defendant’s arbitrary submission on March 23, 2016, as a result of an appraisal on the urine and hair voluntarily submitted by the Defendant on March 23, 2016, it can be recognized that the reaction from the urine was caused, and “training” reaction was caused from the urine (1cm-2cm).

B. Based on the foregoing facts, the lower court determined on the basis of the foregoing facts, starting from February 2016, 201, as indicated in the instant facts charged, the same year.

2. By November, 200, recognizing the fact that the Defendant’s philophone component was put into the body of the Defendant, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the instant facts charged on the ground that it cannot be ruled out the possibility that the philophone component was put into the Defendant’s body through the medication system where the indirect inhaled or philophone component remains in the process of philophone medication, in light of the fact that the DNA appraisal data, etc. on the medication that was not submitted to the NA emotional evidence about the medication that was seized at the investigation data about B or at the scene, and that data about whether the philophone component was detected in the body by indirect inhaledth, etc. was not submitted.

C. However, according to the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, i.e., the result of appraisal of samples voluntarily produced by the defendant on two occasions, etc., the defendant's body at the time of the date of entry of the facts charged in the instant case and at the time of entry of the facts charged in the instant case.