The judgment below

The part of the forfeiture shall be reversed.

Seized evidence 7 shall be confiscated.

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As there is no clear assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles on the grounds of appeal on July 17, 2015, which was submitted by the Defendant for mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, it is to be judged by selecting a mistake of facts and misapprehension

On January 26, 2015, the Defendant, together with AB and AC on January 26, 2015, administered a penphone once, but Article 2 of the facts charged.

D.In each of the crimes described in paragraphs (f) through (f), the judgment of the court below that judged it as a substantive concurrent crime of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (f) due to the three-time scopon medication,

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment, confiscation, additional collection of 1.4 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. According to the police officers of the defendant, AB, AC, and J, the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, and the statements, etc. at the prosecution, the defendant administered a phiphone on January 26, 2015, and he/she himself/herself administers a phiphone three times, and it is sufficiently recognized that he/she administered a phiphone. The lower court did not err in misapprehending the legal principles or misapprehending the legal principles as pointed out by the defendant.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

B. Although there are extenuating circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant appears to be on the argument of unfair sentencing, and that there is no history of punishment for narcotics-related crimes, the lower court appears to have determined the punishment by reflecting all of the circumstances in the lower court. While there is no change in the amount and frequency of the penphone handled in the instant crime, the form and frequency of the crime, the circumstances after the commission of the crime, and other circumstances indicated in the records and arguments, including the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, career, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the lower court’s sentencing is determined within the reasonable and reasonable scope, and is excessively unreasonable.