The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

1,700,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

1. The sentencing of the lower court (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination ex officio ( omitted evidence) of the defendant cannot be admitted as evidence of guilt when the confession of the defendant is unfavorable to him/her. Thus, in cases where the defendant was found guilty on the basis of the confession of the defendant without any supporting evidence, it shall be deemed that there was an error of law affecting the conclusion of the judgment in itself.

(2) The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on corroborating evidence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, although the court below found guilty as to the purchase of each Melopon (hereinafter “Melopon”) as stated in paragraphs (1) and (2) of the judgment of the court below. However, considering the evidence cited by the court below (G prosecutor’s statement is limited to the statement concerning the purchase of Melopon as stated in paragraphs (3) of the judgment of the court below, and there is no statement as to paragraphs (1) and (2) of the judgment of the court below, since there is no evidence to reinforce it in addition to the confession of the defendant, since the court below found guilty of each of the above crimes.

3. In conclusion, the above part of the judgment of the court below should be reversed on the ground of the above ex officio reversal, and the above part of the judgment below which sentenced a single punishment by treating the above part of the reversal and the remaining crimes as concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act cannot be maintained as it is. Thus, without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, the whole judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act

[C] The Criminal Procedure Act provides that the Criminal facts recognized by this court and the summary of the evidence are identical to the facts constituting the crime and the summary of the evidence. However, the Criminal Procedure Act provides that “The second prosecutor’s interrogation protocol against the defendant is added to “the statement of G” in the summary of the evidence of the court below.