The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below on the summary of the reasons for appeal (the imprisonment of six months, the suspension of execution of one year, and the collection of 1.5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, the lower court ex officio examined the grounds for appeal, and the lower court was unable to escape from reversal for the following reasons.

A. The lower court applied Article 60(1)2 and Article 2 subparag. 3(b) of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. to the Defendant.

Accordingly, the former Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. was amended by Act No. 10786 on June 7, 2011, and Article 1 of the Addenda to the former Act shall enter into force on the date one year after its promulgation.

"" and Article 3 of the Addenda Article 3 shall apply to the application of penal provisions to acts before the enforcement of this Act.

Each of the crimes of this case is stipulated as ", and each of the crimes of this case is committed on February 28, 2011 and the same year.

3. 8. As such, the lower court applied the former Act prior to the partial amendment, which was a corporation at the time of action, and applied the new Act to the Defendant.

B. Meanwhile, on September 19, 2008, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Narcotics Control Act at the Seoul Western District Court on the grounds of a violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc., and the sentence became final and conclusive on December 19 of the same year. On June 16, 2009, the Defendant completed the execution of the sentence at Red Prison on June 16, 2009, and the Defendant was on February 28, 201 and the same year within three years after the execution of the sentence was completed.

3. 8. Since each of the crimes of this case was committed, the execution of imprisonment with prison labor cannot be suspended for each of the crimes of this case pursuant to the proviso of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act.

Nevertheless, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the grounds for disqualification for enforcement under the proviso of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, thereby delaying the execution of imprisonment with labor for each of the instant crimes.

3. The judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's unfair argument of sentencing, and the judgment of the court below is reversed.