(a) A prosecutor;

(1) misunderstanding of legal principles and mistake of facts

In regard to the violation of the Road Traffic Act, the court below found the defendant not guilty on the ground that there is no supporting evidence in addition to the confession of the defendant, and found the defendant not guilty on the ground that there is no supporting evidence, and there is an examination report of the suspect examination of the non-indicted prepared by the prosecutor, investigation report on the arrest process of the defendant prepared by the judicial police officer, and the statement of the currency of the defendant due to circumstantial evidence as to the fact that the defendant was driving, the court below found the non-guilty of this part of the facts charged, which affected the conclusion of the judgment,

(2) Unreasonable sentencing

Even if not, in light of the fact that the Defendant has already committed the same kind of crime three times, while repeated crimes are currently being committed, and considering the special characteristics of the narcotics crime committed repeatedly and habitually, the risk of recidivism is very high, and the contents of the instant case include the issuance of phiphones, etc., the sentencing of the lower court (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too uneasible.

B. The defendant (e.g., unfair form)

In light of the fact that the Defendant fully recognized the instant crime, and that the Defendant committed the instant crime with mental difficulty while driving a funeral hall rolling stock, and that the Defendant was in depth divided his mistake, the sentencing of the lower court (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the prosecutor's misapprehension of the legal principle and mistake of facts

(1) Summary of this part of the facts charged

A driver of a motor vehicle, etc. is prohibited from driving a motor vehicle, etc. under the influence of drugs, such as narcotics, marijuana, psychotropic drugs, etc., but the defendant, around 02:00 on February 18, 2010, operated a 0.03g km-on vehicle from the front line of the ELM in the north-dong of Busan, to the coffee, while the defendant is unlikely to drive a motor vehicle normally due to the influence of the penphone administered as such, while he/she is unlikely to drive a motor vehicle normally.

(2) The judgment of the court below

Although the Defendant confessions the above facts charged in the investigative agency and this court, the confession constitutes the only evidence unfavorable to the Defendant, as there is no evidence to reinforce the confession, and thus, it cannot be deemed as evidence of guilt. As such, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no evidence of crime.

(3) Judgment of the court below

In full view of the Nonindicted Party’s statement of confession and the evidence legitimately adopted and examined by the lower court, the fact that the Defendant driven the said vehicle after administering the phiphone, as described in the above facts charged, is recognized, in full view of the Nonindicted Party’s statement at the police station and the prosecutor’s office that the Defendant was issued a phiphone on February 18, 2010, which was the time immediately preceding the time when the Defendant administered and driven the phiphones, and the statement in the letter of request for appraisal that the phiphones were detected from the Defendant’s urine collected on February 20, 2010.

However, Article 150 subparagraph 1 of the Road Traffic Act which applies to the above facts charged provides that "the driver of a vehicle, etc. shall punish "the person who drives a vehicle, etc. under the condition that he is unlikely to drive normally due to drugs in violation of the provisions of Article 45," and Article 45 of the Road Traffic Act provides that "the driver of a vehicle, etc. shall not drive a vehicle, etc. under the condition that he is unlikely to drive normally due to influence of overwork, disease or drugs (referring to narcotics, psychotropic drugs, and other substances prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Public Administration and Security) other than under the provision of Article 44, and other reasons." Thus, it is reasonable to view that the driver of a vehicle, etc. under the legal text of the above provision, who drives a vehicle, etc. under the condition that he is unlikely to drive normally due to such fact, and even if the defendant does not appear to have any symptoms at the time of the second day of the trial, he can only be deemed to have no evidence to prove that the vehicle was administered normally by the defendant at the time of confession and its oral.

Therefore, since this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, the court below's decision of not guilty is just, and there is no error of misunderstanding of legal principles or misunderstanding of facts as alleged by the prosecutor, so the above argument by the prosecutor

B. As to the assertion that there are unfair practices between the two parties

With respect to the assertion of unfair sentencing between the two parties, the defendant has been punished for the same kind of crime three times (two months of imprisonment), and in particular, after the execution of the final punishment due to the same kind of crime has been completed, the crime of this case constituting a repeated crime is committed, and the nature and circumstances of the crime are poor. In addition, the crime of this case includes not only the philophone medication but also the crime of delivery of philophones, and thus the crime of philophones is committed. However, the amount of philophones handled by the defendant in the crime of this case is not more than 0.09g in total, and the amount of philophones handled by the defendant in the crime of this case is not more than 0.09g in total, and the defendant lives faithfully and faithfully for his wife and children without re-offending, and the defendant's motive and circumstance of the crime of this case, circumstances after the crime of this case, the defendant's age, character and behavior, and circumstances in the records and arguments of this case are considered as appropriate.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Park Jong-hun (Presiding Judge)