The judgment below

The guilty part shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

provided that this ruling has become final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (Definite or misunderstanding of legal principles and unreasonable sentencing) cannot be deemed to have exercised a functional control over the use of computer, etc. as indicated in the lower judgment. 2) The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Defendant’s right to participate in the process of seizure of plastic bags containing approximately 0.14 g of search for vehicles in which he/she is using, and plastic plastic bags (Evidence No. 1) and white plastic clocks (Evidence No. 2) containing the above plastic plastic bags was guaranteed. Since the Defendant voluntarily submitted the above evidence to an investigative agency, the above evidence and narcotics appraisal form are admissible, and thus, the Defendant possessed them by keeping marijuana in the vehicle in which he/she is using.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s appeal regarding the guilty portion of the judgment below

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the conspiracy does not require any legal punishment in relation to an accomplice relationship where two or more persons of the relevant legal principles jointly process a crime, but only constitutes a combination of intent to realize a crime by combining two or more persons of the crime by jointly processing the crime. If the combination of intent is achieved in a successive or implicit manner, the conspiracy relationship is established, and even those who did not directly participate in the act of the crime are held liable for criminal liability as a co-principal against the other co-principal even if they did not participate in the act of the commission of the crime. Therefore, even if a co-principal of fraud had known the method of deception in detail, the conspiracy relationship cannot be denied (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do5080, Aug. 23, 2013). Moreover, it is insufficient that the intention of co-processing is not sufficient to recognize and refuse it (see Supreme Court Decision 200Do576, Apr. 7, 200).