The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor as to the gist of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding the facts), the fact that the Defendant knowingly sold this fact with the knowledge of the fact that the Defendant had a local mental medicine ingredients on the pentle.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of ex officio appeal, the prosecutor examined ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal, and the prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment to the effect that the facts charged by violating the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc., which was acquitted by the court below, are the primary facts charged, and the facts charged by the court below are added to the facts charged as stated below (the grounds for re-written judgment). Since this court permitted this, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any longer.

However, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake as to the primary facts charged is still subject to the judgment of this court.

B. The lower court determined the Prosecutor’s assertion of mistake as to the primary facts charged. The evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant sold it with the knowledge that the Defendant had a pro rata drug substance on the pentde, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the Defendant’s criminal intent.

Rather, in light of the evidence submitted by the defendant, such as the status of the defendant, the status of the defendant, the title and content of the article posted on the Internet car page to sell the above drug, the statement of witness D of the court below, the statement of the witness D of the court below, the certificate of delivery of medical expenses, the certificate of payment of medical expenses, and the family relation certificate, the defendant's assertion that the above drug contains a native mental medicine component is acceptable.

The Court pronounced not guilty of the primary facts charged on the ground of ‘the primary facts'.

(ii)..