The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts1) The Defendant did not sell marijuana to B on March 2018 and on April 1, 2018. The facts charged in the instant case are comprised of ① the sale of marijuana to a police officer on March 19, 2018, ② the sale of marijuana to a police officer on April 13, 2018, ③ the smoking of marijuana around September 13, 2018, ④ the possession of marijuana around September 13, 2018. The Defendant and his defense counsel argued that there was no offence as stated in the instant facts charged, ② the record of the instant case and the criminal case records related to B and G submitted to this court, and ① the Defendant and his defense counsel maintained the claim that the Defendant and his defense counsel sold the marijuana from the summary of the pleadings on February 19, 2019 to March 29, 2018 (the first record of the public trial).

After purchasing approximately 28g of marijuana, the date and time of the crime on March 29, 2018, the date and time of the crime on which he sold it to G, and ② The Defendant and the defense counsel from Nar group submitted the evidence-related department at the lower court on October 30, 2018 to B, arguing that the serious crime who sold marijuana around April 28, 2018, sold it to B is called “V.”

(No. 30-31 of the public trial records). However, since the fact-finding asserted as “U” (No. 162 of the public trial records) through the submission of the summary of the pleading as of February 19, 2019, the defendant has maintained the above assertion until now.

After purchasing approximately 168g of hemp, the date and time of the crime sold to G shall be specified in April 28, 2018 as the date and time of the crime.

However, the Defendant entered the Republic of Korea on May 26, 2018 after departure from the Republic of Korea on April 26, 2018, and there is a albibibi on April 28, 2018 to the Defendant regarding the crime of selling marijuana.

3) Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the grounds of the false prosecutor’s statement by B, etc. without credibility and the Defendant’s wrong statement by the prosecutor’s office. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.