The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

Seized evidence shall be confiscated.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Prosecutor 1) The lower court acquitted the Defendant of the aforementioned part of the judgment, either by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, on December 2, 2014, on the ground that there was a letter of appraisal that the Defendant administered a penphone and smoked marijuana, and there was sufficient evidence to reinforce the confessions as to the receipt of the said penphone and marijuana, on the ground that there was a document of appraisal that the Defendant administered a penphone and smoked marijuana at the time of the above day. However, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the aforementioned part of the judgment.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the Defendant by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine

A. On December 2014, 2014, the Defendant: (a) received one-time injection and hemp medicine 0.5 grams from D at the home of D located in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Nam-gu; (b) around 21:00; (c) one-time injection and hemp medicine containing approximately 0.05 grams; and (d) one-time injection and hemp medicine 0.5 grams from D.

Accordingly, even if the Defendant is not a narcotics handler, he received philophones and marijuana, which is a medicine for psychotropic medicine.

B. The lower court rendered a judgment that acquitted the Defendant on the grounds that there is no evidence to reinforce the confession, although the Defendant made a confession of this part of the facts charged.

(c)

The evidence of reinforcement of a confession made in the deliberation of the party is sufficient if it is sufficient to recognize that the confession of the defendant is not processed, even if the whole or essential part of the crime is not recognized, and it is sufficient to prove that the confession of the defendant is true, not processed, as well as indirect evidence or circumstantial evidence not directly evidence. In addition, it is sufficient to prove that the confession and reinforcement evidence are sufficient if the facts of crime can be acknowledged as a whole as evidence of guilt as evidence of guilt because they are mutual balance

The Supreme Court Decision 2007Do3041 Decided July 12, 2007 and Supreme Court Decision 8 January 2002.