The 3th page 12 of the judgment of the court below shall be corrected to “B”.

A. The Defendant did not import psychotropic drugs, such as lsD and MMA, as stated in the facts charged (Article 3 of the lower judgment’s criminal facts). Even if the Defendant imported such ls, there was no profit-making purpose.

Specifically, as follows:

1) The term referring to the voice web site that requires the use of a special slaber in order to access, although using the teaweb and the Internet, and such a site cannot be confirmed in the same way as the general Internet site.

(B) The “B(BC)” is a number of buyers of narcotics, etc., and ordinarily, the narcotics handled by each seller, such as marijuana, phiphones, and lsD, are clearly divided. The Defendant has sold only marijuana using the ID called “X” on the said website. 2) The Defendant: (a) reported that the address of an adjacent building, such as his/her domicile, has been posted on the Dac Web website; and (b) was exposed to his/her personal information; (c) made a copy of the said address as it is to be displayed with the proprietor of the “B”, who is the operator of the “AX”, stored the said address in his/her external e-mail file (electronic name: o.t.xt).

(i) The Defendant’s outer cover was only called “storage” and “preparation and posting” was limited to a third party, other than the Defendant). The Defendant had sold marijuana prior to the instant case by placing it in the parking lot of his own building. During that process, the place where the marijuana was left was exposed to a third party, and the third party, who became aware that the place at which the Defendant was exposed was related to the Defendant’s residence, intended to cause the Defendant.