The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the reasons for appeal (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Examination ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant for an ex officio judgment.

According to the records, the Defendant was sentenced to one year to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Narcotics Control Act in the Sungnam Support Center on February 15, 2017, and the judgment became final and conclusive on August 31, 2017. As such, the crime of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (fence) and the crime of this case, which became final and conclusive, are in the concurrent relationship between the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and the crime of this case, shall be sentenced after considering equity and the mitigation or exemption of the punishment pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, in the case of a trial, the prosecutor applied the provision of the law to add "Article 37 of the Criminal Code" to "Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Code," and the court permitted this.

In this respect, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's unfair argument about sentencing, and the judgment of the court below is reversed, and it is again decided as follows through pleading.

[Re-written judgment] The summary of criminal facts and evidence recognized by the court was "the parole period" of the judgment below among the criminal facts of the court below.

The term “the parole period has lapsed,” and the judgment was finalized on August 31, 2017, on which one year was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Narcotics Control Act (compact) in support of the Sungnam Branch of Suwon Friwon on February 15, 2017.

Except for the addition of “the Defendant’s oral statement before and after the judgment of the court,” among the summary of the evidence, the phrase “1. before and after the judgment of the court below” is identical to each corresponding column of the court below, and thus, it is cited as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Criminal facts;