The part of the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance against Defendant A are all reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment of Defendant A’s decision on the first instance judgment (a punishment of one year of suspended execution, two years of protection observation, 40 hours pharmacologic, 102,00 additional collection) and the punishment of the second instance judgment (a punishment of imprisonment, one year, 300,000 additional collection) are too unreasonable.

B. The punishment of Defendant I’s second decision (the penalty of 8 months, 100,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine the reasons for ex officio appeal as to Defendant A prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal.

A. Defendant A filed each appeal against Defendant A among the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance, and this court decided to concurrently examine each of the above appeals cases.

Each of the crimes committed by the lower judgment convicting Defendant A is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, one sentence should be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. As such, the part of the lower judgment and the second judgment against Defendant A among the lower judgment and the second judgment cannot be maintained any further.

B. In addition, the judgment of the court below in 198, Defendant A administered the philophone scopon’s scopon, and smoked approximately 0.1g of marijuana for criminal facts.

After the determination, Defendant A issued an order to additionally collect KRW 100,00 (100,000) equivalent to the market price of the amount of a single-time medication and KRW 2,000 (2,000) equivalent to the market price of the amount of a smoking for marijuana once, and determined that the amount of a penphone administered cannot be specified, Defendant A cannot be ordered to additionally collect the amount. Thus, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding the additional collection in the judgment of the court of first instance cannot be maintained any more in this respect (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do16170, Dec. 15, 2016). 3.

The above sentencing grounds are the age of Defendant I.