A. The investigation of the defendant was conducted unlawfully by misunderstanding of facts or by misunderstanding of the legal principles or by force or intimidation, cooperation with the illegal investigation by the informant, etc. As such, evidence, such as the appraisal result by illegal investigation, etc. constitutes an illegally collected evidence, the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged against the defendant based on illegal evidence, has erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one year and eight months of imprisonment, additional collection) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below as to the assertion of misunderstanding the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles also asserted the same as the grounds for appeal, and the court below rejected the above assertion by pointing out the grounds that the defendant's appeal and the extraction of the defendant's appeal were executed by lawful seizure, search, and verification warrant, etc.

Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine as alleged by the Defendant, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the defendant's mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

B. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s determination on the unfair argument of sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The Defendant’s criminal act itself is recognized as a substitute for one’s criminal act, but the drug crime is highly detrimental to the society.