1. The judgment below is reversed.

2. The defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10,000,000.

3. The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts, the Defendant, at the time of the instant case, committed dilution with the Defendant’s beeropopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopopop

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment, additional collection of one hundred thousand won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and adopted by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant was aware that he/she had been dilution at the time and place indicated in the instant facts charged, so the Defendant’s allegation is without merit.

① The Defendant stated in the prosecution that “E would have assumed that he would be able to be able to be narcotics,” and that “I, even though he was aware of the influence of alcohol, he would have taken the influence of narcotics, he would have expressed his desire to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be breath” (Article 177, 178 of the Investigation Records).

② The witness F of the lower court determined to the effect that the Defendant was “I am on the part of E after drinking,” and the Defendant’s statement partially consistent with the Defendant’s assertion (which is the 81 pages of the trial record). However, as seen in the above ①, the Defendant knew that I am on the part of the Defendant, as seen in the above, was shotphone, and the Defendant’s protest against E is merely a circumstance after the commission of the instant crime.

B. The instant crime against the assertion of unfair sentencing is that the Defendant administered phiphonephones, and in light of the social harm of narcotics-related crimes, the nature of the relevant crime is not good. The Defendant committed the instant crime even during the period of repeated crime after completing the prison term as an attempted murder, and the Defendant denied the instant crime and did not object to it.