The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

However, for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the grounds that there was no evidence to reinforce the Defendant’s confession as to the Defendant’s smoking of marijuana in collusion with S around 22:00 on the first day of May 2011, and on the grounds that there was no evidence to reinforce the Defendant’s confession. On April 24, 2013, S who is an accomplice was detained and led to a confession of smoking of marijuana together with the Defendant on the relevant trial date, and was sentenced to a conviction. This is sufficient to serve as evidence to reinforce the Defendant. Accordingly, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, 40 hours of pharmacologic treatment, confiscation, and collection) by the lower court is unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) around 22:00 on May 20, 201, the Defendant: (b) at the Defendant’s residence of Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D and 3rd floor 2; (c) made two expenses for marijuana tobacco in which S had previously possessed by inserting approximately 0.5g, which is 0.5g, and added a fire to one of them and added a fire to the remainder of the Defendant, thereby smoking marijuana in collusion with S. by smoking it.

B. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the grounds that there is no evidence to reinforce the confession, although the Defendant made a confession on this part of the facts charged.

C. Reinforcement evidence of confessions made in the judgment of the political party is sufficient if it can only be recognized that the confessions of the accused are true, not processed, even if the whole or essential part of the facts constituting the crime is not sufficient to acknowledge the whole or essential part of the facts constituting the crime. Moreover, indirect or circumstantial evidence can be used as corroborative evidence, not direct evidence, and the confessions and corroborative evidence are as a whole.