All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the case of a local mental medicine under each item of Article 2 subparag. 3 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (hereinafter “the Narcotics Control Act”), it cannot be deemed that each item is subject to different intention.

Therefore, insofar as the Defendant, at the time and place indicated in the facts charged, recognized that “the psychotropic drugs prohibited legally,” and objectively, committed an act that legally prohibits items falling under the psychotropic drugs under Article 2 subparag. 3(a) of the Narcotics Control Act, the Defendant should be deemed to have had the intent on the items of Article 2 subparag. 3(a) of the Narcotics Control Act.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that it appears that the Defendant objectively perceived the act as “pacters” falling under the psychotropic drugs under Article 2 subparag. 3(a) of the Narcotics Control Act, which constitutes “4-Mexa,” “4-Mexa,” “4-Mexa,” “Mexa,” and “Mexa,” which is legally prohibited under the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (hereinafter “4-Mexa et al. such as Mexa,” which constitutes “pacters” under Article 2 subparag. 3(b) of the Narcotics Control Act, at the time of committing the act legally prohibited.

The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one year of imprisonment, confiscation, and additional collection KRW 2,90,000) is too unhued and unreasonable.

B. The above sentence committed by the lower court against the Defendant (unfair sentencing) is too unreasonable.

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

A. On December 2015, the Defendant rendered a not-guilty verdict on the reasoning of the lower judgment (a summary of the facts charged).