The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

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

(2) the date of this judgment.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the facts charged were not specified in relation to the misunderstanding of the facts of the Defendant or misapprehension of the legal principles on August 24, 2017.

In addition, the defendant did not have the intention of smoking marijuana because he knows it as tobacco and inhales it.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty on the ground that there was an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

The punishment sentenced by the court below (10 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

With regard to the fact that the Defendant smokes marijuana on April 20, 2016, the lower court determined that it was identical and acquitted, despite the fact that the Defendant’s criminal facts, which became final and conclusive on November 12, 2016, and this part of the charges, are different.

Judgment

The purpose of the law, which states the time, place, and method of a crime, is to limit the scope of the trial against the court and to facilitate the exercise of the right of defense by specifying the scope of defense against the defendant in the facts charged as to the determination of the defendant's assertion as to the mistake of facts or the misapprehension of legal principles, is to limit the scope of the defense against the court. Thus, the facts charged is sufficient if the facts constituting the elements of the crime are stated in the indictment to the extent that it can be distinguished from other facts, and even if the time, place, method, etc. of the crime are not explicitly stated in the indictment, it does not go against the purport of the law, which stipulates that the facts constituting the facts charged are specified in the indictment, and if the general indication is inevitable in light of the nature of the crime charged, the indictment cannot be deemed unlawful because the contents of the indictment are not specified (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do6646, Jan. 14, 2005). In light of the above legal principle, the court below's right of defense can be established by the evidence duly adopted: