Although D submitted approximately three months after the commencement of the investigation into the instant Handphones, it was found that the investigation first concentrated on gambling and did not proceed with the issue of receiving and receiving narcotics, D appears to have endeavored to detect the instant Handphones in full view of the fact that the existence of the Handphones was an important issue before submission of the instant Handphones, and that the place where the instant Handphones were kept was not easily seen, D’s statement that there was justifiable reason to submit the instant Handphones to the investigation agency at the latest, and that it was issued by the Defendant as described in this part of the facts charged, is reliable.

Nevertheless, the lower court rejected the credibility of D’s statement, and rendered a not guilty verdict on this part of the facts charged on the ground that there is no evidence that the seized phiphones are the same as the philophones indicated in this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine

In light of the various sentencing conditions in this case, the sentence sentenced by the court below (one year of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too unfluent and unfair.

Judgment

As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the main point of the facts charged is that no person possess, possess, use, manage, export, import, manufacture, trade, arrange for trade, or accept a local mental medicine. However, the Defendant is a network at the “P” office operated by himself/herself in the racing-si around June 2014.