The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, for three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The defendant has never cultivated marijuana.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely recognizing that the Defendant cultivated marijuana jointly with C.

Even if the seizure articles alleged by the prosecutor's misapprehension of the legal principles were consumed by the appraisal, the adjudication of confiscation is necessary.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine of confiscation, which determined that the confiscation of the seized articles that are not existing may not be declared.

Defendant

The prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unlimited and unfair.

(1) On the contrary, the above sentencing is too unfortunate and unfair.

(A) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined in the lower court’s determination on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant cultivated each marijuana from around November 201, 2013 to April 24, 2014 (hereinafter “nive house”) in the house located in the Ethn city F (hereinafter “nive house”) jointly with C as stated in the lower judgment, and from around April 2014 to June 24, 2014, the fact that the Defendant cultivated each marijuana in Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu G702 Dong 2904 (hereinafter “Bcheon-gu”).

We cannot accept this part of the defendant's assertion against this.

At the first interrogation protocol of the police, the Defendant, as stated in the holding of the lower judgment, stated that the Defendant cultivated marijuana, such as marijuana cultivated by the father house, and that he/she was aware of the hemp cultivation act online, and that he/she was, during the first interrogation protocol of the first interrogation protocol of the police branch, sold to J on March 2014, 201; and that he/she was, among others, marijuana cultivated by himself/herself.

In addition, from the 2nd interrogation protocol of the police to the 2nd interrogation protocol of the prosecution, the hemp was transported from the female house to the 2nd interrogation protocol of the prosecution, and the vice house was leased in the name of the defendant.