A. The date and time indicated in this part of the facts charged, and the provision to C at the place of the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. is a bag, so the Defendant did not provide C with a philopon.

B. The lower court determined that perjury is established even against the Defendant on the ground that C was convicted of having received a final judgment of conviction, on the ground that the Defendant consistently asserted from the investigative agency to the trial court that there was no misunderstanding of the legal doctrine that the Defendant provided a philopon from the Defendant to C, which is dependent on the Defendant’s subjective memory.

(c)

The punishment of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment, additional collection) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the assertion of mistake as to the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc.

A. The gist of this part of the facts charged is that the Defendant is not a narcotics handler.

On April 19, 2015, the Defendant provided C with a non-explosive volume of Meptiles (one penphone; hereinafter referred to as philophones), which is a local mental medicine, to the following: < Amended by Act No. 1373, Apr. 19, 2015>

B. The lower court determined that the Defendant, on April 19, 2015, provided a penphone to C for the following reasons.

The following facts and circumstances that can be acknowledged by each evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court of the original instance, i.e., ① the fact that a criminal judgment already finalized on the same factual basis was established is a valuable evidence, and thus it is difficult to adopt a judgment on the facts of the criminal trial.

Unless there are extenuating circumstances to determine a person, it cannot be recognized that the case is inconsistent with C (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do11349, Dec. 24, 2009, etc.). On February 4, 2016, with respect to C, “C” from a non-permanent area lower than Daegu from the Defendant around April 19, 2015.