The judgment below

Part of acquittal shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. The lower court rendered a not-guilty verdict on the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (mariana) among the facts charged in the instant case, and the prosecutor appealed only to the part not-guilty by the Defendant

Therefore, since the guilty portion of the judgment of the court below is separated and confirmed, the scope of the judgment of the court below is limited to the facts charged as to the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (ma

2. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below found that the defendant delivered marijuana to a policeman Ma on February 2, 2008, and found the defendant not guilty of the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (mariju). Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3. The facts charged and the judgment of the court below on the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc.

A. On May 28, 2008, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for a violation of the Narcotics Control Act (mariju) in the support of the Daejeon District Court, Daejeon District Court on September 13, 2008, and the judgment became final and conclusive on September 13, 2008. On February 2008, the Defendant issued three pieces of tobacco, which are contained in a newspaper to M within a white shot War show that it is impossible to identify the number of a person handling narcotics in front of Seosan apartment even if he is not a person handling narcotics, and received it.

B. The lower court’s judgment: (a) the copy of the police interrogation protocol of M constitutes an interrogation protocol prepared by an investigative agency other than the prosecutor in relation to the defendant and accomplice; and (b) as long as the defendant and defense counsel have consented to the purport that the content is not recognized on the date of the 8th trial, it shall not be admissible as evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Do2865, Jul. 9, 2009; 2003Do7185, Jul. 15, 2004); (c) summary information of the case; and (d) comprehensive information of the case (Evidence No. 35).