The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

2.1 million won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

3.2

1. Reasons for appeal;

A. Defendant 1’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine (guilty part) did not purchase Metephographs (hereinafter “philopon”) from B, which is a local mental medicine, around June 17, 2018. However, Defendant only obtained three g of philopon from B on June 18, 2018 and purchased it.

2) The sentence of the lower court (a year of imprisonment, an additional collection of KRW 2.1 million) that was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The judgment of the court below which acquitted the prosecutor 1) of the facts, despite the credibility of the B's statement on the facts charged, is erroneous in the misapprehension of the facts.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal, the prosecutor examined the case ex officio, and on July 10, 2018, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of the indictment to the effect that "oneg of philophones" is changed to "0.7g of philophones" among the facts charged for the purchase of philophones on July 20, 2018, which the lower court acquitted the Defendant at the trial, and this court permitted this. This part of the facts charged is changed to the subject of the judgment. Since this part of the facts charged is in the concurrent relation between the remaining facts charged guilty and the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the lower judgment cannot be maintained any further.

However, in the judgment of the court below, the defendant's assertion of mistake and misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the guilty portion is still subject to the judgment of the court.

3. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment as to the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the facts and legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the trial court, namely, ① the Defendant’s 80,000 won plus KRW 300,000,000,000,000,000,000 to B during the examination process of the first instance court B, and the Defendant paid KRW 1,100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won to B (which was denied with respect to a quid pro quo).