The judgment below

Of the judgment of the court below No. 1

(a)the remainder (including the portion of collection) of the crime, with the exception of the part concerning the crime;

1. Progress of judgment and scope of judgment of this court;

A. 1) The lower court: (a) accepted the Defendant’s charge of the Metecopopon on August 3, 2009 (one philopon; hereinafter “philopon”); (b) sealed the Defendant’s charge of approximately 100 g of each philopon on March 30, 201 and April 25, 201; and (c) committed a violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (all 1-A, B, and C as indicated in each judgment) on June 3, 201 that the Defendant administered approximately 0.03 g of each philopon (hereinafter “each Melopon”).

The Defendant guilty of violation of the Immigration Control Act that he/she attempted to enter the Republic of Korea without undergoing an entry inspection on June 1, 2014 (hereinafter “the point or part of the judgment”). The Defendant found the Defendant guilty of the violation of the Immigration Control Act that he/she attempted to enter the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “the point or part of the judgment”). ④ As to the violation of the Narcotics Control Act (hereinafter “not guilty part”), each white color (Evidence 1 through 7) seized was illegally seized without a warrant, and thus, all the above evidence and the secondary evidence based on the evidence admitted as admissible are inadmissible, and the remainder of the evidence admitted as admissible is insufficient to acknowledge this part of the facts charged.

On May 7, 2010, among the facts charged guilty, the court rendered a verdict of not guilty on the charge of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc., which became final and conclusive on May 7, 2010 and the charge of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc., which became final and conclusive on July 201, Article 37 of the Criminal Act 1-A of the judgment in relation to the crime

2) The Defendant’s judgment No. 1-C.

The prosecutor appealeds on the grounds of misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the point of view and misunderstanding of the entire convictions, and the prosecutor appealeds on the grounds of misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the acquittals in the judgment of the court below and misunderstanding of the sentencing as to the whole guiltys in the judgment of the court below, but the judgment prior to the return was dismissed

The defendant is again judged by a prosecutor on the grounds of unfair sentencing.