The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and four months.

Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, and 11, respectively, of seized evidence.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On September 13, 2016, the defense counsel’s written opinion presented on November 30, 2016 by misunderstanding the facts or misapprehending the legal principles is deemed to supplement the grounds for appeal by misunderstanding the facts entered in the petition of appeal and misapprehending the legal principles.

Of the facts stated in the judgment below, No. 1-C.

The part concerning the violation of the traffic laws in navigation and No. 2-b. The smoking part of navigation marijuana is a false confession of the police officers who believe that they would be fined, and the defendant did not actually commit the act, and there is no evidence to prove it in addition to the defendant's false confession. Thus, the judgment below convicting the defendant of this part of the charges is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment, confiscation, additional collection of KRW 800,000) is too unreasonable.

2. The court below held ex officio, No. 1 of the decision of the court below

(a) paragraphs (ii) to (v);

(b) paragraphs (2), (4), and (2);

A. It appears that the sum of the value of the penphones (one time 100,000 won x 6 times) provided for each of the crimes in paragraphs (1) and (2) or the hemp (100,000 won x 2 per 1g x 800,000 won is collected.

However, according to the records, the defendant is the first-mentioned decision of the court below.

B.2) As stated in paragraph (2), part of the hemp after the delivery of approximately 1g of the hemp plant is used, and the remainder of the hemp plant No. 0.51g is 1-2 of the judgment of the court below

B. 3) Article 1 of the lower judgment’s decision that was seized as stated in paragraph (3) (No. 1 of the seized evidence, and destruction after appraisal)

B. 4) As stated in paragraph (4), part of the hemp after the delivery of approximately 1g of the hemp plant is used, and the remainder of the hemp plant No. 0.27g is 1-2 of the judgment of the court below

B.5) The judgment of the court below that collected the total amount of KRW 20,000 equivalent to the value of the hemp plants confiscated as above (=100,000 per 1g of Mancho x (0.51g 0.27g)) by the defendant without deducting the amount, is unlawful, even though it is recognized that the amount equivalent to the value of the hemp plants confiscated as above is not possible. However, the judgment below that collected the total amount of KRW 200,000 equivalent to the value of the hemp plants delivered by the defendant without deducting it.

3. Determination as to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.