The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

No. 3 of the seized evidence shall be confiscated.

1. The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment, confiscation, and collection) is too unreasonable as to the gist of the grounds for appeal.

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

When the confession of a defendant is the only evidence against the defendant, it shall not be admitted as evidence of guilt (Article 310 of the Criminal Procedure Act). Thus, in a case where the defendant was found guilty on the sole ground of the confession without any supporting evidence, it shall be deemed that there was an error of law affecting the conclusion of the judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do7835, Nov. 29, 2007, etc.). On the other hand, since the substantial concurrent crimes are concurrent crimes, there is sufficient evidence of confession as to each crime (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10937, Feb. 14, 2008, etc.). In light of the above legal principles, in this case, since each of the facts charged in the instant case is related to a substantive concurrent crime, it shall be recognized as guilty only if there is a supporting evidence as to each of the facts charged.

[2017 order 218] The lower court held that there is no evidence to reinforce the confession of the Defendant as to the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. due to medication, among the facts charged, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record: (a) the Defendant’s legal statement, (b) the prosecutorial statement to J against the Defendant; (c) the investigation report to the J; (d) the details of the transaction; (d) the details of the seizure; (d) the list of seizure; (e) the list of seizures; and (v) the statement of a request for appraisal; and (vi) the statement of a request for appraisal; and (v) the investigation report on narcotics, etc.

A. The J stated at the prosecution that the Defendant was able to dyna 1,000 U.S. at the prosecution, but the Defendant first administered at the investigative agency about 40 times each time on November 2016 at the first dyna 1,000 U.S.A. at the investigative agency.

On September 2016, the statement was made later.