The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal: The punishment sentenced by the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

The Defendant’s defense counsel, through his written opinion dated October 11, 2017, following the Defendant’s written reasons for appeal: (i) the Defendant was able to undergo the trial of this case with the previous final judgment; (ii) the Defendant cancelled the order of the product containing the content of EXM prior to that cancellation; and (iii) the Defendant had already known to the investigation agency at the time of being investigated into the previous final judgment, that he ordered the above narcotics, etc.; (iv) thus, at the time of the investigation, the prosecutor was able to institute concurrent prosecution with the above final judgment by attempted to import narcotics, etc.; (v) the Defendant was indicted as a charge of violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Prevention of Illegal Trafficking in Narcotics, etc. after receiving the above narcotics, which constitutes abuse of the right of prosecution, and thus, should be reversed.

However, the appellate court shall decide on the grounds included in the grounds for appeal, and even if the grounds for appeal are not included in the grounds for appeal (Article 364(1) and (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act), even if examining the records and records, there is no sufficient data to acknowledge the facts alleged by the defendant. Rather, the defendant is bound by the previous final judgment after having ordered the instant narcotics, etc. by accessing the investigation agency to an overseas direct site around July 2015, and was subject to suspended execution after having received the previous final judgment, and was released as a result of suspended execution on September 23, 2016, and was urged to send the ordered narcotics, etc. by visiting the said site again after having received the previous final judgment on September 23, 2016.