The part of the lower judgment against Defendant A and the part against Defendant B, excluding the compensation order.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) The joint purchase of psychotropic drugs in the judgment of the case of 2019Da4499 and the import of psychotropic drugs in the judgment of each case of 2020Dahap2449 are several continuous acts corresponding to the name of the same crime, and were continuously conducted for a certain period under the single and continuous criminal intent, and the damage legal interests are the same as those of a single and continuous criminal intent, and thus, they are not a substantive concurrent crime but a single comprehensive crime. (2) The punishment (two years and six months of imprisonment, etc.) imposed by the court below on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B’s imprisonment (two years of imprisonment, etc.) sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. On October 24, 2019, the prosecutor made an application for permission to amend an indictment to delete the part of the facts charged in the second instance case No. 2019,500,000 won around October 24, 2019, and 2.5 million won around October 30, 2019 among the facts charged in the case No. 2019, which is oral during the second instance trial. The subject of the judgment was changed by the court that permitted the amendment to an indictment as above

Accordingly, the judgment of the court below which sentenced one punishment in the substantive concurrent relationship with the previous trial subject to the change has become unable to be maintained any more.

However, the defendant A's assertion of misunderstanding the legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court despite the ground for the above ex officio reversal. Thus, the following paragraph 3 will be examined.

3. Where a number of acts falling under the same name of the same crime or a series of acts falling under the same name of the defendant A's assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles continues to be conducted for a certain period under the single and continuous criminal intent, and where the legal benefits from such damage are the same, each of these acts shall be punished by a single comprehensive crime. However, where the unity and continuity of the criminal intent are not recognized or the method of the crime is not identical

(Supreme Court Decision 2013Do10467 Decided November 28, 2013 and Supreme Court Decision 2006Do3172 Decided September 8, 2006, etc.).