The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Of the facts charged in the instant case, as to the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (flapsing to a patroler by using a clopon (hereinafter “copon”), among the facts charged in the instant case, on June 2013, as to the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (flapsing to a patroler) due to the administration of a copon, among June 2013, and the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (flapsing to a patroler) due to the administration of a copon (flapsing to a copon), the Defendant led to the confession of the receipt and administration of a copon, which includes a copon in June 201

B. The lower court’s sentencing is too unjustifiable and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The summary of this part of the facts charged is that the Defendant: (a) received, on June 14, 2013, approximately 0.03g of oponon from a person in a club “C” located in New York, New York; and (b) administered it in such a way as to cover it with drinking water at that place; and (c) the content of the statement made by a person other than the Defendant, who said person, as a person to commit an offense, is not included in the confession of the Defendant under Article 310 of the Criminal Procedure Act; but it cannot be deemed as evidence supporting the Defendant’s confession. Since substantive concurrent crimes are substantially several crimes, evidence of each criminal fact is required (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10937, Feb. 14, 2008; 2007Do10937, Feb. 14, 2008).