The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the judgment of the court below, there is an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as follows.

1) As to the use of phiphones among the facts constituting the crime No. 1 of the judgment below, the Defendant merely notified G of the fact that the Defendant gave phiphones to G and did not use G phiphones.

2) As to the smoking of marijuana as stated in Article 2 of the facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment, the Defendant did not have any fact between the places indicated in the facts charged on June 11, 2017, the date indicated in this part of the facts charged, and did not have any fact of smoking marijuana

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one hundred months of imprisonment and one hundred three thousand won of additional collection) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the Defendant alleged that this part of the appeal was the same as the ground for appeal, and the lower court rejected the above assertion in detail with the detailed statement of the decision in 3rd point. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in comparison with the records, the lower court’s judgment is justifiable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or of misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the Defendant.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the defendant's assertion.

2) The Defendant smoked the hemp plant at an investigative agency on June 11, 2017, after having the hemp plant satisfed by I located in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government H at the same time, with the hemp plant satched from the French male, and having the hemp smoked by having the hemp smoked.

(2) The Defendant, at the time of smoking, reversed the confession made by the investigative agency and reversed the confession made by the investigative agency, while denying the facts charged to the effect that he was aware of the smoking at the time of smoking, although the Defendant, at the time and time indicated in this part of the facts charged, smoked marijuana was acknowledged at the lower court. However, the Defendant reversed the confession made by the investigative agency, as the grounds for appeal in this part.