A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Since only the prosecutor filed an appeal on the non-guilty part (the point of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc.) in the first judgment, the dismissed part (the point of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc.) was separated and confirmed as it is.

On the other hand, the defendant filed an appeal against the judgment of the second court which was pronounced guilty, and this court tried to consolidate the appeal cases against the judgment of the first and the judgment of the second court. Thus, the non-guilty part of the judgment of the first and the judgment of the second courts are subject to the judgment of the second court

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. It is reasonable to view that the Defendant was proven without any reasonable doubt that he/she used psychotropic drugs, inasmuch as the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles (the part of acquittal in the first instance judgment) was detected in the Defendant’s defense.

B. In light of the Defendant’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing (the second judgment of the court below) that the Defendant divided his mistake, the Defendant’s home environment, etc., the lower court’s imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. Determination (Judgment as to the Prosecutor’s argument)

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged (the acquittal part of the first instance judgment) was from November 6, 201 to November 10, 201, the Defendant, even if not a person handling narcotics, used sppha by attaching a fire to the “sppha” tobacco in the form of dry plant containing JWH-018 (one spphas), which is a psychotropic substance, at the location of the Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 3folds around the 10th day of the same month.

B. Although the Defendant’s change in the contents of the Defendant smokes, the Defendant is under the influence of alcohol.