A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Seized evidence shall be confiscated.

A. Of the facts charged in the instant case by misapprehending the legal principles, there is no evidence of reinforcement, except the confession of the Defendant.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and legal principles.

B. The sentence that the court below rendered unfair sentencing (the imprisonment of eight months, confiscation, and collection) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. Around March 21, 2018, the Defendant received 20 parts of the charges, without compensation, a disposable injection phone from a person (red red beer) whose name is unknown through SNS-based app “I” from the above G hotel H heading room on March 2, 2018.

2) On March 2, 2018, at around 21:30, the Defendant received from a person (Korean person) who was unable to know the name of the 20th latter half of the G hotel H by the said “I” through the said “I,” a single-use injection device containing approximately 0.05g philopon, free of charge, from the Defendant.

B. The lower court rendered a conviction against the Defendant by comprehensively taking account of each of the evidence indicated in its judgment.

(c)

1) In light of the above legal principles, the admissibility of confessions is sufficient when it is sufficient to prove that the confessions of the defendant are not processed, even if it is not sufficient to recognize the whole or essential part of the crime, and the indirect evidence or circumstantial evidence, which is not directly evidence, can be proven. Further, it is sufficient to prove that the confessions and reinforcements are sufficient to prove the whole criminal facts as evidence if they are consistent with the above legal principles (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do1897, Jan. 8, 2002).