The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Among the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the legal principles, each voluntary consent form, consent form for the collection of urines and urines, written consent form, and written consent form as a result of a simple examination of reagents, and written report on appraisal results, etc., collected by the defendant

Therefore, there is no evidence to prove the facts charged of this case other than the confession of the defendant.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, which erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The court below's decision on unfair sentencing is unfair because it is too unreasonable to hold the two years of suspended sentence and the two million won of additional collection charge in October, which was sentenced by the court below to the defendant.

2. In full view of the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio and the respective decisions (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do147, Seoul High Court 2014No1933, and Seoul Western District Court 2013No430), the fact that the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for 11 years at the Seoul High Court on December 11, 2014 due to a violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Rape) at the Seoul High Court, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on April 9, 2015 can be acknowledged. As such, each of the instant offenses committed before the said judgment becomes final and conclusive with imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment, in relation to concurrent crimes stipulated in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, taking into account equity in cases where each of the instant offenses and the judgment became final and conclusive pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, and thus, the lower judgment has no longer been determined to be mitigated or exempted from the punishment.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendant's assertion of misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined below.

3...