All the judgment below is reversed.

Defendant is each crime of the judgment of the court of first instance and the first and second crimes of the judgment of the court of third instance.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact-finding, the Defendant did not receive or import opium 60g as stated in Articles 1 and 3 of the judgment of the court below, which was found to have been a shipbuilding Q, living together with the Defendant. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court found the Defendant guilty on this part.

B. The sentence sentenced to the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance on the unfair sentencing (the imprisonment of eight months for the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act and eight months for the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents)

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the mistake of facts and the argument on unreasonable sentencing by the defendant.

This Court decided to concurrently examine the appeal cases against the judgment of the court of first instance, the judgment of the court of second instance, and the judgment of the court of first instance. Meanwhile, the first and second crimes against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance, and the crimes of the third and fourth crimes among the judgment of the court of second instance as stated in the judgment of the court of second and the judgment of the court of third are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and shall be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of punishment aggravated for concurrent crimes under Article 38(1)

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio determination, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court.

B. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court, based on the evidence adopted, stated the following circumstances, namely, ① the circumstance and method that the Defendant received 60g of opium from the prosecutor’s office in China, the background and method of bringing 60g of opium into Korea, and the method and circumstances of keeping 60g of opium in Korea, etc., and led to the Defendant’s confession of the fact that the Defendant received 60g of opium and imported it into Korea. However, the Defendant’s statement at the prosecutor’s office