The judgment of the court below is reversed.

As to the defendant's violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc., No. 281, the upper end of 2017.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by the lower court [the 6 months imprisonment, the remaining crimes: imprisonment with prison labor for one year, confiscation, and additional collection] is too unreasonable. It is unfair that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles (less part) Defendant’s philopon’s quantity is 0.05 g and 0.03 g of this, which differs between the quantity of the instant philopon’s possession and the quantity of the philopon’s quantity, and it is recognized that the distance between time and place is recognized, and thus both the crime of possession and the crime of medication in relation to the above 0.03g are established. However, the crime of possession does not constitute a separate crime because the crime of possession was absorptiond

The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine 1) The summary of this part of the facts charged was against the Defendant, on February 11, 2017, by means of containing 0.03g of phiphone-phone 0.03g in the Seoul-gu Seoul-gu Seoul-gu Seoul-gu L 2ndrophone office.

2) The lower court’s judgment can verify that philophones are 0.03g of philophones which are the objects of possession under this part of the facts charged, and that philophones are used for a crime of medication as stated in Article 535 (2) of the 2017 upper order, and if philophones are administered, the crime of possession does not constitute separate crimes because they are absorbed into a medication crime.

Since it is reasonable to see that the crime of possession is not established separately as long as he/she is found guilty of the crime of medication as stated in the judgment of the court below.

3) The judgment of this Court) where a person who possesses a relevant legal doctrine administers the narcotics, the possession of the narcotics shall not be absorption into the medication unless the possession is in an indivisible relationship with the medication or is assessed as a part of the administration in light of social norms.