All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) As to the erroneous determination of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (the part concerning the crime of oil) on January 31, 2020, and the smoking of marijuana as of January 27, 2020, which was submitted to an investigation agency on this part of the facts charged, since the urine and hair submitted to the investigation agency was not submitted voluntarily by the Defendant, the result of the drug appraisal on the urine and hair cannot be used as evidence of guilt against the above crime.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the above narcotics appraisal result guilty as evidence is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the method of determining the voluntariness of execution of a warrant

B) As to the possession of marijuana on January 31, 2020, the defendant was arrested on January 31, 2020, the hemp (Evidence No. 3) confiscated at the time of arrest on January 31, 2020, and the defendant did not possess it. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the charges by deeming that the defendant possessed the above marijuana, was erroneous and erroneous. 2) The decision of the court below on unreasonable sentencing is too heavy.

B. The judgment of the court below that acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the prosecutor (not guilty part)’s statement on this part of the facts charged was reliable, despite the credibility of the G’s statement, was erroneous in misapprehending the facts charged

2. Determination

A. The court below examined the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on the plaintiff's assertion of misunderstanding of facts on January 31, 2020 and the smoking of marijuana as of January 27, 2020, compared with the reasoning stated in the item, and closely examined the part concerning the non-existence of reinforced evidence. The following circumstances revealed by the above evidence are as follows: ① The defendant did not raise any objection to the procedure or method of voluntary submission during the investigation conducted by the investigative agency at least six times after the plaintiff submitted urines and hairs; ② The defendant asserted as the defense counsel.