All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Since it is a consumer’s freedom to use the product legally purchased for any purpose, it is in violation of the Constitution that criminal punishment is imposed only on the person who inhales the dys the dys. Moreover, the Defendant’s inhales the dys after purchasing the dys through normal distribution channels does not cause any harm to others. Nevertheless, the Defendant’s inhales the dys constitute a justifiable act that does not violate the social rules. Nevertheless, the lower court’s judgment convicts the Defendant, which is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal doctrine. (2) The Defendant committed the crime of inhaleing the dys under the lack of ability or decision-making ability to discern things due to the lack of the ability to use the dys’ body

3) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The above-mentioned sentence of the prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle of the defendant

A. The Defendant’s argument that the provision punishing the unconstitutionality of the unconstitutionality is Article 59 subparag. 6 and Article 22(1) of the Chemicals Control Act (hereinafter “instant penal provision”) appears to be unconstitutional, as a provision infringing on an individual’s right to self-determination.

However, Article 37(2) of the Constitution provides that “All freedom and rights of the people may be restricted by law only when it is necessary for national security, maintenance of order, or public welfare, and even when it is restricted, it shall not infringe on the essential contents of freedom and rights.” Thus, insofar as the provision does not violate the principle of excessive prohibition, it shall be governed by law.