All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is that Defendant A was aware of the fact that the medicine he received from Defendant A was exempted from water, and did not know that it was a local mental medicine, so there was no intention to commit a violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc.

Although H used for taxi expenses and voluntarily ordered 25,000 won, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant was guilty of robbery.

Since the original trial court did not properly adopt evidence by predicting the defendant as a habitual offender, it is erroneous in the deliberation failure and mistake of fact.

The indictment of this case, which was instituted based on the above, is unlawful, since the investigative agency had enticed the defendant through the "F", illegally arrested the defendant, had the defendant feel sexual humiliation during the investigation process, and did not properly collect evidence.

The punishment sentenced by the court below (two years of imprisonment, three years of probation, observation of protection, 80 hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

Defendant

B In fact, misunderstanding A was aware of the fact that the fluent medicine was exempted, and was not aware of the fact that it was a local mental medicine, so there was no intention to commit a violation of the Narcotics Control Act (fluence), and there was no awareness of illegality by the Defendant, since the act of fluoring A the exemption was punished as a crime of violation of the Narcotics Control Act (fluority).

The punishment sentenced by the court below which is unfair in sentencing (the penalty amount of KRW 5,000,00) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

As to the Defendants’ assertion of mistake as to the facts regarding the Defendants’ violation of the Narcotics Control Act (e.g., violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc.), the lower court also asserted the same purport, but in full view of all the circumstances admitted by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court exempted the Defendants from the above acceptance at the time when the Defendants exchanged the Defendants’ malkin mar mix and sar 3 mix.