The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A A A shall be punished by a fine of 2,000,000 won, and Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

except that this shall not apply.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendants of this part of the charges by misunderstanding the facts, despite credibility of the Defendant’s statement concerning the Metecopty of the Mecopty of misunderstanding of facts (hereinafter “Mecopon”) and strokes sale and receipt of items, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on Defendant B (six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio determination.

With respect to the facts charged in paragraph (1) of the "Violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (f)" against Defendant A among the facts charged in the instant case at the trial of the Prosecutor, the Defendant added the facts charged in the instant case as follows: "On January 1, 2016, the Defendant sent 1 psychotropic drug strokem to B at the first restaurant; thereby, the Defendant received psychotropic drug strokem.; the Defendant changed the date of the crime charged in paragraph (2) from " around March 2016" to " around May 2016." As to the facts charged in paragraph (1) of the "Violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (f)" against Defendant B, "the Defendant obtained 1 strokem from A at the first restaurant on January 2016, and thereby, the Defendant received strokem strokem, which is a psychotropic drug," and the lower court was found guilty of the amendment to the facts charged as stated below.

However, even if there are the above reasons for ex officio destruction, it is caused by each penphone trade and strokem trade (mainly charged charge) for the Defendants.