Of the lower judgment, the facts charged as to “the possession of philophones” in the case of 2018 Gohap155 and the facts charged as to “each purchase of philophones” in the case of 2018 Gohap224 are those of double prosecutions as to the same case, and thus, the prosecution is unlawful.

The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on double prosecution for punishing the defendant guilty in all of the above facts charged.

The facts charged on “each purchase of philophones” in the judgment of the court below which instituted a new prosecution against the case in which the prosecution was instituted shall be sentenced to the judgment dismissing the prosecution in accordance with Article 327 subparag. 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The punishment sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing (two years and six months of imprisonment, confiscation, and collection KRW 6.4 million) is too unreasonable.

In a case where a person continues to possess a philophone purchased without disposing of the philophone purchased without regard to the allegation of misapprehension of the legal principles as to the grounds for appeal, unless it is assessed that the act of possession is in an indivisible relationship with the sale and purchase act, or is merely an inevitable result accompanying the sale and purchase act, the act of possession shall be deemed to have been established separate from the crime of purchase of philophones, not an inclusive absorption.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Do869, Jul. 28, 1995). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant purchased approximately 30g of oponon from Z, and approximately 5g of oponon from Z, around September 2, 2017, approximately 35g of opononon from Z, and then divided approximately 4g of oponon 5g of oponon from Z around September 4, 2017 through around September 5, 2017, and administered approximately 31g of opon on the remaining opon in copon and tobacco cases.

In light of the above legal principles.