The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

No. 1 of the seized evidence

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s sentencing is too inappropriate.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, such as misconception of facts, the court below acquitted the Defendant on this part of the charges, although it could sufficiently recognize that the Defendant received approximately 12.32 grams of Metapule (hereinafter “Melopon”), even though the Defendant is not a narcotics handler. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts and misapprehending the legal principles.

2) Improper sentencing of the lower court is deemed unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by the Defendant and the prosecutor prior to the judgment.

In the trial of the court below, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. by Handphones which the court below acquitted as the primary charge, and applied for the amendment of the Act to add the criminal facts of the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. by Handphones, which are recognized below, to the preliminary charge. This court permitted the amendment and changed the subject of the judgment. This part shall be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of the punishment for aggravated concurrent crimes under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act in relation to the remaining criminal facts and concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, which were found guilty by the court below. In this regard, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more.

The prosecutor's assertion of mistake of the above facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, even if there are grounds for reversal of authority above.

B. On February 21, 2017, the summary of this part of the facts charged was about 12.32g of the penphonephones imported from O, as described in paragraph (a) of the judgment of the court below, at M Hotel L in Gangnam-gu Seoul around February 21, 2017.

Accordingly, even if the defendant is not a narcotics handler, he received philophones.