The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

5,756,00 won shall be collected from the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. From among the criminal facts found guilty of the lower judgment on June 3018, 2018, the part of the lower judgment, which issued KRW 400,000 in cash to a person who was unaware of the name of the police officer among the criminal facts found guilty of the lower judgment on Defendant (the fact-finding, misunderstanding of the legal doctrine, and unreasonable sentencing) and purchased a false philopon. The criminal facts in the lower judgment on June 30, 2018, stating that “the Defendant issued KRW 80,000 in cash to AT and purchased a single philopon with two philopon containing a total of KRW 1.5g of the philopon (hereinafter “the comparative facts

Therefore, the first instance court erred by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles, thereby recognizing the establishment of double crimes as to the facts of the purchase of the same penphones. 2) The first and the second instance court sentenced the Defendant respectively (the first instance court: imprisonment of three years and additional collection of 2,506,00 won, and the second instance court: imprisonment of one year and eight months and additional collection of 3,250,000 won: 1 year and eight months, and 2,50,000 won).

B. On August 28, 2018, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the charges of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (hereinafter “the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc.”) due to the purchase of marijuana from D on August 28, 2018, even though the Defendant led to confession by the investigative agency, and the evidence to reinforce it was provided.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor.

A. As to the first instance judgment, the Defendant and the prosecutor appealed each of the Defendant with respect to the second lower judgment, and the lower court decided to jointly examine the said cases.

Each of the crimes in the first and second original judgments against the defendant is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and if the conviction is recognized, one sentence should be sentenced pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the part of the first and second original judgments cannot be maintained as they are.

B. Meanwhile, the record and the lower court and the trial.