A. Defendant 1) In relation to the facts constituting the crime of 2016 Highest 2845, which was indicated in the judgment of the court below, the Defendant merely viewed marijuana possessed by G and asked what it is, and the Defendant did not have received and possessed it.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (two years and six months) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below on the defendant (two years and six months) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court also argued to the same effect as the grounds for appeal on this part. As to this, the lower court: (a) found the Defendant’s plastic paper, which includes marijuana, in the apartment room in which the Defendant was well-known; (b) found the Defendant’s DNA in the given plastic paper; (c) found the Defendant’s DNA in the given plastic paper; and (d) found the given plastic paper in his own bank.

In other words, it was not put into a bank again.

In light of the fact that the Defendant made a statement to the prosecution twice during interrogation of the suspect, and led to the confession of the possession of marijuana, the Defendant convicted of this part of the facts charged.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the above circumstances in the court below’s reasoning, the defendant possessed marijuana at the date and time as determined by the court below.

The decision is proper, and there is no error by mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

(1) Lastly, the Defendant did not have been accommodated in the 203 heading room, which is a place where marijuana is discovered, and G was accommodated therein.

The argument is asserted.

However, the defendant has been accommodated in the 203 heading room in an investigative agency.

In addition, the manager AG of the above Maurel was accommodated in the police and the court of original instance in the 203 defense room, a special room for the defendant, and G was able to see the defendant at all times.