The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not have smoked marijuana together with C and D at the time of the instant case.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (a fine of KRW 5 million and an additional collection of KRW 3,000) is too unreasonable.

2. The facts charged and the judgment of the court below

A. On December 11, 2016, the Defendant, along with C and D at the Gangnam-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan Government Franchisium, injected smokes generated by burning a fire with a fire.

Accordingly, the Defendant smoked marijuana.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged by compiling the evidence as indicated in its judgment.

3. In a criminal trial for a trial for a trial of a political party, the recognition of facts constituting an offense ought to be based on strict evidence of probative value, which makes a judge not to have any reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof does not reach the degree to have such convictions, the determination should be made in the interests of the defendant even if there are suspicions of guilt, such as contradictions with the defendant’s assertion or defense, or non-comfortable amnesty.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2015Do119 Decided May 14, 2015, etc.). Comprehensively considering the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed as having been proven beyond reasonable doubt that the Defendant smoked at the time of the instant case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Although the investigation agency conducted the appraisal of narcotics on the defendant's urine and maternity, it did not detect the ingredients of narcotics, including marijuana, in the defendant's urine and maternity.

B. C, at the time of the instant case, was present at the lower court’s court and did not have smoked with the Defendant as to his memory, and was acquitted at the time of the prosecutor’s investigation around October 2017.