The judgment below

The acquittal portion shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two months.

If there are several orders for the judgment due to the scope of trial by this court, the partial convictions, partial innocences, and several facts charged for concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, or the final judgment after having been sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or more severe punishment, or the decision is rendered due to the determination of punishment, etc., the part included in the one order may be appealed separately from other parts, and both parties shall separately file an appeal.

Therefore, in a case where only the prosecutor appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance that acquitted the defendant and the prosecutor on the part of the facts charged related to concurrent crimes, and only the prosecutor appealed on the part of the acquittal, the part of the conviction which the defendant and the prosecutor did not appeal has become final and conclusive as the period of appeal has expired, and the case pending in the appellate trial is not prosecuted, and accordingly, the part

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do10985 Decided November 25, 2010, etc.). According to the records of the instant case, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the violation of the Narcotics Control Act, among the facts charged in the instant case, of the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc., for the period of one year and six months, and of one year and six months, and the part of the entry into a building, and the fact that the Defendant did not appeal the lower

As the Defendant did not appeal against the lower judgment and the Prosecutor appealed only against the acquittal portion among the lower judgment, the conviction portion among the lower judgment is finalized, and the scope of the judgment by this court is limited to the acquittal portion lodged by the Prosecutor among the facts charged in this case.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The fact that it is possible for the defendant to dilize and administer philophones with tap water, and there is a circumstance that the defendant tried to stay in sufficient time within the toilet, such as filling the cell phone in the toilet.