The judgment below

Of them, the part concerning the collection of additional collection against Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B 544,00 won.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: synthetic marijuana in the facts charged against Defendant A, misunderstanding of the legal principles and by misapprehending the legal principles as to Defendant A (referring to synthetic marijuana in which the ingredients of Non--A-Croposa (AB-CHINAA) are non--cromatic medicine.

hereinafter the same shall apply) A crime of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. in the Number, Smoking and Possession [Article 2-2 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. in the Judgment of the court below]

A. In relation to the crimes described in paragraphs (3) through (5) of this Article, when Defendant A purchases synthetic marijuana from Defendant B, it was possible for Defendant A to know that it was not the synthetic marijuana designated as temporary narcotics, but the hemp, and in such a situation, it was smoking and smoking.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which punished Defendant A as a crime of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc., including the purchase of synthetic marijuana, smoking, and possession, was erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles and misconceptions of the facts.

The punishment sentenced by the court below to Defendant A (4 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Defendant

B In regard to the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. Selling Synthetic Synthetic Disturbing the legal principles, the lower court’s judgment punishing Defendant B as a crime of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. Selling Synthetic Television 138, based on the following facts: (a) Defendant B was unaware of selling her goods to Defendant A; (b) Defendant A was unaware of her synthetic marijuana; and (c) Defendant A was unaware of her sales to Defendant A; and (d) Defendant A was unable to distinguish her synthetic marijuana and general marijuana from her appearance, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misapprehending the legal doctrine.

With respect to the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. for Sale of Mepters to V, Defendant B sold a Meptile (one philopon; hereinafter referred to as “philopon”) to V at the date and place specified in the facts charged of the crime No. 4 of 2015, 145, which is the facts charged of this part.