The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Although the defendant's defense counsel in the summary of the grounds for appeal asserts that the facts charged were not specified, it is not a legitimate ground for appeal as a subsequent argument after the deadline for submitting the grounds for appeal.

In addition, even if ex officio examination is conducted, in a case where a statement of appraisal that the Mespheric ingredient was detected in the Defendant’s maternity is submitted as evidence, and the Defendant denies the medication, the period of medication is set as the shortest period to the extent possible, based on the result of the Maspheric test conducted by dividing the Maspheric ingredient by growth period, or based on other evidence such as the Defendant’s criminal records. If the place is specified to the extent that it is possible to distinguish territorial jurisdiction through an investigation into the Defendant’s criminal records, etc., it shall be deemed that the facts charged were specified even if part of the detailed contents such as the time, place, method, dose, etc. are not specifically stated or are written in an irregular manner (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Do3111, Jan. 30, 201; 2005Do2667, Jun. 24, 2005; 2005Do1647, May 27, 20015).

There is no misunderstanding of the facts that the defendant administered the merptist, and there is a possibility that the F, who was aware of the fact, was the defendant, to have the merptist on the merptist.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the Defendant alleged that there was no fact that philophone was administered in the lower court, but the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined.