A. Defendants: The sentence of the lower court (two years of imprisonment, confiscation, additional collection, Defendant B’s imprisonment with prison labor for one year, and additional collection) is too heavy.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor regarding Defendant B’s violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. by Handphones, among the facts charged against Defendant B, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The lower court’s punishment against Defendant B is too minor.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined that there was a lack of evidence to prove the facts charged against Defendant B, on the following grounds.

① Since it is insufficient to prove that the police notified Defendant B of the gist, etc. of the fact that he/she was accused of (hereinafter “unsurin principle”), it is difficult to view the Defendant’s urgent arrest as lawful. The Defendant’s emergency arrest constitutes secondary evidence found based on his/her home address discovered in the course of illegal emergency arrest. In light of the circumstances at the time of seizure and search, it is difficult to recognize admissibility as evidence since the police did not meet the requirements for voluntary submission.

② Under such premise, the protocol of seizure (Evidence No. 38), list of seizure (Evidence List No. 39), dwelling and photograph (Evidence List No. 40), and reply to a request for appraisal (Evidence List No. 51) are inadmissible as evidence based on an illegal urgent arrest and it is difficult to recognize that Defendant B submitted it voluntarily.

No. 41 of the written consent for the extraction of urines (Evidence List No. 41), the confirmation (Evidence List No. 42), the seizure protocol (Evidence List No. 44), and the list of seizure (Evidence List No. 44).