The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

320,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The lower court found the Defendant guilty on the following grounds: (a) around 19:00 on August 7, 2014, as indicated in paragraph (2) of the facts charged in the instant case: (b) the Defendant did not administer a mixed phone around 0.05g (hereinafter referred to as “copon”); (c) around 13:00 on August 15, 2014, around 16:0 to 18:00, as indicated in paragraph (4) of the instant facts charged, there was no fact that the Defendant administered approximately 0.03g of the Defendant’s house located in the G building 203 or delivered approximately 0.05g of the copon to F at the E’s house (hereinafter referred to as “copon”); and (d) the Defendant did not err in the misapprehensioning of the facts charged in the instant case by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant provided the coponon to F free of charge and delivering the copon to F. 0.3g. (hereinafter referred to as “instant”).

The sentence of unfair sentencing (one year, four months of imprisonment and additional collection) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

In order to reach the trial of the instant case, the Prosecutor filed an application for permission to amend the Bill of Indictment with the content of “ around 16:00 on August 15, 2014” and “ around 17:0 on August 15, 2014” in Article 3 of the facts charged in the instant case, and Article 3 of the facts charged in the instant case, “within 16:0-18:00 on August 15, 2014,” and Article 4 of the facts charged in the instant case, and the subject of the judgment was changed by this court’s permission. Therefore, in this regard, the part 3 and 4 of the facts charged in the instant case

However, even if the above reasons for ex officio destruction exist, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined in paragraph 3 below.

The evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts (However, all of the evidence Nos. 7 and 9 related to the defendant and accomplices are deemed to have denied the contents of the evidence without consenting to the defendant's second trial date.