The judgment of conviction in the first instance court and the second instance judgment shall be reversed, respectively.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of two years and two months.

Summary of Reasons for appeal

A. Each sentence of the judgment of the court below (unfair sentencing: imprisonment of one year, additional collection of one hundred thousand won, and second instance: imprisonment of one year and six months, and additional collection of one million won) is too unreasonable.

B. As to the part of acquittal of the lower court, the first instance court found the Defendant not guilty on the charges of the above part, on the grounds that there is no evidence of reinforcement of the Defendant’s confession, but on the ground that the evidence of reinforcement of the Defendant’s confession is sufficient, the judgment of innocence of the first instance court is unlawful by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

Judgment

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

The Court decided to consolidate each appeal case against the original judgment.

However, each crime of the original judgment against the defendant (the guilty part of the first instance judgment and each crime of the second instance judgment) is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Thus, in the event that a concurrent judgment is rendered at the same time, a single punishment should be imposed for each of such crimes pursuant to Article 38 of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, the decision of the court below cannot be upheld as it is.

B. Determination on the Prosecutor’s argument of misunderstanding the legal doctrine (1) as to the part of the charge, the Defendant purchased a penphone by purchasing KRW 150,000 from a person in the name in the AH market located in the Busan Northern-gu, Busan, on October 2014, and purchasing approximately 0.09g from a penphone.

(B) On October 2014, the Defendant administered philophones in a way that 0.03g of philophones purchased, as described in paragraph (1), at the AI residence in Busan, Seo-gu, Busan, for the purpose of dilution the volume of 0.03g of philophones purchased, in the middle of 2014.

(2) As to this part of the facts charged, the first instance court found the Defendant not guilty on this part of the facts charged, on the grounds that there is no evidence to reinforce the said confession, which constitutes the only evidence unfavorable to the Defendant, and thus, it cannot be deemed as evidence of guilt.

The prosecutor submitted the judgment of the court of first instance.