The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the absence of the facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment, the Defendant found the Defendant guilty on the grounds that “In the vicinity C of Changwon-si, Changwon-si, Changwon-si, the Defendant received psychotropic drugs-related 0.05g 0.05g of psychotropic drugs (i.e., single clopon; hereinafter referred to as “coon”), as indicated in paragraph (1) of the crime of the lower judgment, the lower court found the Defendant guilty.”

The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and misapprehending the legal doctrine on the acceptance of philophones, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment, confiscation, and collection) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are left to a judge's free judgment, but such determination must be consistent with logical and empirical rules, and the degree of the formation of a conviction to be found guilty in a criminal trial shall not be required to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt, but to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt, and rejection of evidence which has probative value without reasonable grounds shall not exceed the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence. The reasonable doubt here refers to not all questions and correspondence, but to a reasonable doubt that is rational in the probability of a fact that is inconsistent with the facts that are not proven in accordance with logical and empirical rules. Thus, the court below's appeal to the purport that it is not reasonable in this part of the court below's assertion to the effect that there is no reasonable doubt based on conceptual or abstract possibility of finding the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do22212, Jun. 25, 2004).