The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Part 2-B of the Judgment of the Court in the 2017 High Order 479.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, it is recognized that the Defendant administered philophones on January 12, 2017, according to the misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles as to the non-crime (2017 order 509 case) and the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor.

The judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unhued and unreasonable.

B. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine (2017 order 479 subparagraph 2-b) The prosecutor set the date and time of the Defendant’s crime from June 17, 2017 to June 26, 2017 on the basis of the outcome of the urine test.

However, the time when the defendant administered philophones is until June 16, 2017.

The lower court, by misunderstanding the fact, specified the time when the Defendant administered philophones from June 17, 2017 to June 26, 2017, and determined a sentence different from the remaining criminal facts on the ground of a violation of the Narcotics Control Act (flaps) which became final and conclusive on June 17, 2017.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and legal principles.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. In the first instance trial, the Defendant, in relation to the crime of violation of the Narcotics Control Act in the 2017 Highest 509 Highest 509, led to the confession of the part of the lower judgment not guilty (2017 Highest 509) and in full view of all the evidence, found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.

The prosecutor's argument is with merit.

3. Determination as to the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. listed in the 2017 Highest 479 Na

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles, the lower court determined that ① based on the Defendant’s outcome of the urine test and the result of estimatinging the timing of medication based on the outcome of the urine test, this part of the facts charged was specified from June 17, 2017 to June 26, 2017.

(2) All together with the evidence of the original judgment, this part of the facts charged.