The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Seized evidence 28, 28.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The facts charged as to the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. against Defendant B cannot be deemed to have been specified to the extent that it does not interfere with the Defendant’s exercise of the right of defense, and Defendant B did not have any fact that he administered phiphones at the time and place specified in this part of the facts charged, but the lower court convicted Defendant B of this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts as to Defendant B’s part

B. In light of the overall sentencing conditions of this case, the lower court’s respective sentence against the Defendants (Defendant A: imprisonment of two years and six months, confiscation, additional collection, Defendant B’s imprisonment of one year and six months, confiscation, and additional collection) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by Defendant A’s ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by Defendant A, the record first reveals that: (a) one of the “1.5g of a white powder contained in vinyl paper” (No. 51) and “4 of a disposable injection machine containing white dust” (No. 52), which was seized, may be recognized as having been requested to the National Scientific Investigation and Investigation Agency to appraise the said Research Institute and not being consumed for the entire appraisal (No. 185, No. 416-417, 505-507 of an investigation record). The lower court sentenced the aforementioned seized article that was already destroyed and still destroyed and remains, and thus, sentenced to confiscation, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on confiscation, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do6982 Decided January 28, 2010). 3. Determination on Defendant B’s grounds for appeal

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the prosecutor shall be based on the date and time of gathering the phiphones from the training reaction of phiphones, data on the period of time when the phiphones are administered after the administration of phiphones, the details of Defendant B’s Hand phone conversationss, the place and time of arrest, and the Defendant’s residence.