All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In regard to the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles regarding ① the free delivery of marijuana (Article 1) as of October 24, 2017 among the facts charged in the case of 2018 Gohap2, the Defendant himself/herself is 40g of marijuana as indicated in paragraph (1) of the said facts charged (hereinafter “instant 1 marijuana”).

(2) As to the sale of marijuana as of March 3, 2017, the Defendant: (a) 40g of marijuana as indicated in the facts charged in the judgment of the court (hereinafter “instant 2 marijuana”); and (b) 30g of marijuana as indicated in the said facts charged, the said marijuana would bring G to the future.

There is no fact of selling. The statement of J, which is the only evidence, cannot be believed to be inconsistent with the Defendant and J as to the date, time, place, etc. in fact. 2) The sentence of unfair sentencing (three years of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts - With respect to each of the acquittald parts of reasoning at the time of original adjudication, the lower court determined as to each of the facts charged in the 2018 Gohap2 case, i.e., marijuana transaction dated October 24, 2017 (instant No. 1 marijuana) and 0.245g gramphones (hereinafter “instant phiphones”).

() As to the transaction, G believed the original judgment’s reversal statement in the lower court, and determined that all of the above transactions were not free of charge. However, G stated that each of the above transactions was a sale at the original investigation agency, but reversed the statement that was given free of charge in the lower court. The statement in the lower court’s court’s court’s judgment is inconsistent with the common sense and logical contradiction, and thus, is not reliable. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) In so doing, the lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts between the Defendant and the prosecutor regarding marijuana No. 1 of the instant case, the lower court first determined as to whether there was the number of marijuana No. 1 of the instant case between the Defendant and G, G.