All appeals by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Each document submitted by a defendant to the appellate brief for which the defendant's defense counsel has filed the appellate brief shall be considered within the scope of supplement in case of supplement.

The confession statement made in the investigation agency B, which seems to correspond to the facts charged in this part of the indictment concerning the fact-finding of the defendant's trade assistance in the purchase and sale of marijuana (Article 1. A. of the facts charged in the original judgment), cannot be believed.

All the details of the AJ dialogue between the Defendant and B and the account in the name of D to the account in the name of the Defendant’s mother L, which was deposited by KRW 90,000,000, after the commission of marijuana trading.

There is no evidence that the defendant has remitted the hemp purchase price.

In light of this, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant, in collusion with B on February 27, 2018, assisted the trade of marijuana between D and C.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and finding guilty of this part of the facts charged.

Each ls D's statement that seems to correspond to the facts charged in this part is difficult to believe that it corresponds to the facts charged in this part concerning the point of purchase of each ls D's purchase (Article 2. A of the original facts charged in the judgment).

In particular, with respect to the purchase of ls from March 9, 2018, at the time, the Defendant contacted with ls to purchase ls, but at the time, the Defendant was not in contact with ls but was not in contact with ls because the transaction was not caused, and the amount of 1.89 million won transferred to the account under the name of ls was not the purchase price of lsd, but the amount of the drinking price borrowed from the existing ls was repaid.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the Defendant, by misunderstanding the facts, purchased ls 10 from D to February 20, 2018 and ls 21 from March 9, 2018, respectively, during the period from February 20 to February 21, 2018.

The facts constituting the crime 2. of the judgment below that the MMA purchase and receipt was made on June 10, 2014

C. On June 10, 2014, the Defendant asserted the misunderstanding of facts regarding paragraphs (3) and (4) only lent 600,000 won to U for use as MMA funds, and there is no direct purchase of MMA or delivery of some of them to U without compensation.

Nevertheless, the lower court.