The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for a period of four years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of prosecutor's appeal grounds;

A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, supra, the Defendant from April 30, 2017 to the same year.

5. 8. As to the facts charged, it was found that there was no evidence to reinforce the confession, and that it was not guilty.

However, there is evidence to reinforce the status of individual immigration, and thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendant (4 years of suspended execution, community service and pharmacologic treatment order, confiscation, additional collection) is too unfluent and unfair.

2. Judgment on the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the legal principles

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged is from April 30, 2017 to the same year.

5. 8. Around the time of a new wall between Thai-gu, Thai-gu, Thai-gu, Thai-gu, the 1,000 mar ( approximately KRW 34,000 in Chinese language) was dried for the female of Thai-gu, Thai-gu, Thai-gu, and the x mar 1 was dried for the X mar mar mar mar mar.

B. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the grounds that the confession of the Defendant was the only evidence as to this part of the facts charged on the grounds as delineated below, and there is no other evidence to prove that the confession was true.

In addition to the confession statement in the investigation agency and court of the defendant, there is a response to a request for appraisal to the effect that the X masters ingredients were detected in the cut hair of 0-3 cm in length of the defendant, but there was no detection in the cut hair of 3-6 cm or 6-10 cm cut hair, in addition to the defendant's confession statement in the investigation agency and court.

The defendant's hair taken on October 12, 2017, and according to the result of the above maternity appraisal, the X-gu ingredients were detected during a period of three months retroactively from the date of collection, and the X-gu ingredients were more than three months.