A. misunderstanding of facts1) The Defendant was aware of strokem or strokem without exemption, and the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (hereinafter “Narcotic Control Act”).

(2) The Defendant did not have any intention to commit a violation of the Narcotics Control Act, since he was unaware of the fact that it was a psychotropic drug as determined by this. (2) The Defendant did not have any theft of the Victim Q Q’s net gold and rebuttal.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment, a fine of five hundred thousand won, and an additional collection of one hundred thousand won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts related to the crime of violation of the Manorm Control Act, Article 2 subparag. 3 of the Narcotics Control Act defines psychotropic drugs as “as prescribed by Presidential Decree, any of the following items, which may cause serious harm to human body if misused or abused it,” and subparagraph (d) of the same Article provides, “as used for medical treatment less likely to be misused or abused than those provided for in item (c) and less likely to be misused or abused than those provided for in item (c), it is used for medical treatment, and it is misused or abused.” (2) In full view of the provisions of this Act and the following circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant recognized that the strokem constitutes psychotropic drugs, even if it was sufficiently aware that the strokem constitutes psychotropic drugs, and even if it was not so, it would have caused serious harm to human body in cases of abuse.

Furthermore, even if the defendant did not know that he was classified as psychotropic drugs under the Narcotics Control Act by the stroke method that served on the human central defense.

This is a mere site of law and stipulated in Article 16 of the Criminal Code.