The judgment below

The guilty part shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

10,000 won from the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. A. The prosecutor [the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (hereinafter "mariana"), among the facts charged in this case] 1] J was discovered by K's information to the investigation agency, while K and K are not good. On the other hand, K's statement is not reliable in light of the fact that there is a relationship between the defendant and the defendant, and K is highly likely to have made a statement favorable to it as a person who is in the position to be punished in this case. On the other hand, K's statement is not reliable, while J has no reason to dismiss the defendant, and all other persons except the defendant among many persons reported by the J except the defendant are sentenced to conviction. 2) Nevertheless, the court below has credibility in its statement in light of the fact that there is a disagreement between J's investigative agency and the court.

On the other hand, not guilty of this part of the facts charged, there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts about the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics.

B. The facts charged by the Defendant (as to the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (hereinafter referred to as the “violation of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles) are merely a statement that was arrested by the Defendant for seven days from April 10, 2013. In light of the Defendant’s criminal records during the above period, multiple possibility of medication exists, and the place where the crime was committed is specified on the basis of only one statement among the Defendant’s statements, and it is difficult to view that the subject of the judgment was specified at a time and place, and there is no entirely specifying the quantity and method of medication. Thus, there is a reason to dismiss the prosecution as to this part of the facts charged.

B. Since the Defendant was arrested as the instant case and only seized more than 100 hairs after being arrested, it is stated that the Defendant had a total of 400 hairs of 100 hairs of the request for appraisal of hairs, even though he was not subject to seizure of hairs, and thus, the above maternity appraisal is made.