The judgment of the first instance and the second instance are reversed, respectively.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and three months.

by reason of seizure.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1 did not administer approximately 0.1g of philophones at the Defendant’s office located in the Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government L Building M around April 14, 2018 (as to the judgment of the court below of first instance) (hereinafter referred to as “the fact of administering the said part of the facts charged”) (hereinafter referred to as “the fact of administering the said portion of the facts charged”)

) Therefore, there is no fact that a person has driven a motor vehicle while normal driving is difficult due to the influence of the administration of scopon on the same day at 14:26 (hereinafter referred to as "the point of driving a motor vehicle" in this part of the charges.

2) The sentence imposed by each court below (the court below's judgment on each of the judgment below) on unreasonable sentencing (the imprisonment of 1 year, confiscation, additional collection of 5,364,00 won, the second judgment below's imprisonment of 8 months, additional collection of 1,850,00 won, and the third judgment below's imprisonment of 4 months, confiscation, additional collection of 20,000 won) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor’s sentence (a year of imprisonment, confiscation, additional collection of KRW 5,364,00) sentenced by the first instance court (an unreasonable sentencing on the judgment of the first instance court) is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Regarding the first and second judgment, the judgment of the court below is examined ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio. The first and second judgment of the court below are pronounced against the defendant, and the defendant filed each appeal against the first and second judgment of the court below, and this court decided to concurrently deliberate on the above two appeals cases. However, each of the crimes in the first and second judgment is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus one sentence is to be pronounced pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the first and second judgment of the court below cannot be affirmed. However, even if the above reasons for ex officio reversal are reversed, since the argument about the mistake of facts against the defendant's first judgment of the court of the court of first instance is still subject to the judgment of the court of first instance, the judgment below is legitimate.