The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

from the defendant 1.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) As to the charge No. 1-A of the facts constituting a crime, misunderstanding of the legal doctrine, there is no fact that the Defendant conspired with C in collusion with C to accept one man containing a propool.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous.

B) As to the charge No. 1- E of the crime, the Defendant did not purchase three soldiers containing propool in collusion with C.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous.

C) As to the entire criminal facts of paragraphs (1) and (2) of this Article, the Defendant received, purchased, and administered propool with a single and continuous criminal intent, and was convicted by the Seoul Eastern District Court on the grounds that part of the propool received protocol as described in paragraph (d) of Article 1 of the criminal facts was administered.

Therefore, since each of the crimes of this case committed by the defendant is related to the crime for which judgment has already become final and conclusive, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of not guilty of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to a single comprehensive crime.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. As the Defendant received, purchased, or administered propool, a propool, the prosecutor (misunderstanding of the legal doctrine) should additionally collect KRW 2,175,000 equivalent to the value pursuant to the proviso to Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which omitted this is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the original collection.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, 1) the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts as to 1-A and 5 of the facts constituting the crime.