All appeals by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (1) misunderstanding of facts (the part concerning the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc.) provided that the Defendant administered a philopon between the Defendant and the Defendant, not by having administered philopon on his own, but by a balopon

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, thereby misunderstanding the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) In light of the fact that the Defendant, other than the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (excluding the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc.) recognizes all the remaining crimes and reflects on it, voluntarily surrenders to the administration of phiphones, and that it is difficult to cope with prison life due to the lack of health conditions, the lower court’s sentence that sentenced one and half years of imprisonment and one hundred thousand won of penalty is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the following: (a) the Defendant, even three times the criminal records of the same kind, administered phiphonephones during the period of repeated crimes; (b) was under investigation by an investigative agency, off his clothes; (c) was placed on the floor; (d) was subject to compulsory medication from M; and (e) did not reflect the Defendant’s false assertion that he was forced to attend; and (e) did not cause damage to the victims of interference with business, the lower court’s sentence is too uneasible.

2. Determination

A. The judgment on the assertion of misunderstanding the facts [the part concerning the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (fence)] was based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., the following circumstances that can be recognized by the court below, i.e., the defendant called as follows: around 14:23, Feb. 14, 2016 by phoneing at 112, and the defendant used a shotphone to die from narcotics and prevented women. It was the reason why the defendant was shotphoned by using the shotphone, and this is now coming to the

The defendant did not say that M was administered with philophones by force, and ② The defendant did not have the police officer dispatched to the scene at the time of the injection, and the water was discarded into a philogram.