The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal had dolusence as to the fact that the Defendants contain psychotropic drugs, psychotropic drugs, or gumphones in the instant Alba or gumar.

2. The subjective element of the constituent element of a crime, which is not the case where the possibility of occurrence of the crime is expressed to be uncertain and it is accepted. The possibility of occurrence of the crime is recognized in order to have dolusence, and further, there is an intent to deliberate on the risk of occurrence of the crime in order to allow the risk of occurrence of the crime. Whether or not the offender is aware of the possibility of occurrence of the crime must be determined by considering how the possibility of occurrence of the crime can be assessed if the general public is based on the specific circumstances, such as the form of the act and the situation of the act performed outside without depending on the statement of the offender. In such a case, the prosecutor bears the burden of proving the existence of dolusence, which is the subjective element of the crime charged. On the other hand, the conviction should be based on evidence with probative value, which makes the judge not have any reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is no doubt about the defendant's profit, it is inevitable to determine the defendant's profit.

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendants had dolusence of the instant Chewing or Alblopon, etc. as stipulated in the Narcotics Control Act, and it is not sufficient to recognize that the Defendants did not recognize the instant Chewing or Albopon, etc., and it is not narcotics such as philopon.