The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not deliver approximately six grams of marijuana to F as stated in the facts of the crime in the judgment below.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding the fact that the defendant was guilty and adversely affected the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. A. Around May 29, 2015, the summary of the facts charged, even if the Defendant is not a narcotics handler, issued marijuana to F without compensation by giving approximately six grams to F in front of the Defendant’s house located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul.

B. The lower court’s judgment: (a) there is no alternative and consistent inconsistency between the F’s statement in the F’s original court’s court and the investigative agency in light of the following: (b) the number and frequency of telephone calls and frequencies between the Defendant and F at the time and the place of telephone call, and the place of telephone call, etc.; and (c) the submission of G two times prior to informing the Defendant of the fact that it is consistent with objective evidence as it does not seem to have been sufficient to simply divide conversations at the time; and (d) the submission of G on two occasions before informing the Defendant.

In light of the circumstances around the time of information such as confirming whether the defendant first informed himself or not, there is credibility in the above F's statement in the court of the original instance and in the investigative agency for reasons such as that it does not seem false information.

The court judged that the facts charged in this case were guilty on the basis of the above statement.

(c)

1) In the relevant legal principles, the recognition of facts constituting an offense ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes a judge not to have any reasonable doubt, and thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the extent that makes the aforementioned conviction, the Defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or inconsistent.