The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, misunderstanding of the legal principles and misapprehension of the legal principles, the Defendant did not recognize that the green walk contained in the vinyl in possession, as stated in paragraph (3) of the facts charged, was marijuana, but did not recognize that E, a local mental medicine, is Non-AB-CHMACA.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that recognized the above facts charged that the defendant possessed B-Saccina or car is improper.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment, confiscation, and additional collection of KRW 548,413) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. Notwithstanding that the Defendant is not a narcotics handler, the summary of the facts charged in this part of the facts charged was placed in a bank that he/she had a finite 0.69g finite finite finite finite finite No. 16:20 on March 13, 2017, and carried them in the manner of keeping them in the Defendant’s office.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the lower court recognized that the narcotics, etc. possessed in vinyl packaging, as indicated in paragraph (3) of the facts constituting the crime in the lower judgment, are non-bred and non-cracksacea, rather than marijuana.

may be appointed by a person.

The judgment of the court below with the same conclusion is just, and the defendant's assertion is not justified.

① As follows, the Defendant made a statement from an investigative agency to the court of the court below that corresponds to this part of the facts charged, and also stated in the reasoning of appeal submitted by the Defendant that all the facts charged, including this part of the facts charged, should be recognized.

Defendant

In addition, the defense counsel reversed his/her statement to the effect that he/she was aware of the influence of the narcotics, etc. he/she possessed, as above, in the court of the first instance, and that he/she did not know about the hemp, but did not explain the reasons why he/she reversed the statement.

In other words, the Defendant.