The judgment below

The part of the forfeiture shall be reversed.

Seized evidence referred to in subparagraphs 2 and 4 through 7 shall be confiscated.

Defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not purchase Metephopon (one philopon; hereinafter “philopon”) three times from D. The Defendant did not purchase Melopon.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment, confiscation, and collection 2.2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant purchased a penphone from D as stated in the facts charged, and the judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the misconception of facts as alleged by the defendant.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the defendant's assertion.

B. Although there are extenuating circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant acknowledges and reflects all the crimes of this case, the defendant's health condition is not good, and the defendant appears to be short of the sentencing guidelines, the court below seems to have set the punishment at the lowest limit of the recommended punishment on the sentencing guidelines by reflecting all the aforementioned circumstances. While there are no circumstances to change the sentencing in the trial, the defendant had the record of having been sentenced four times due to the same kind of crime, and each of the crimes of this case committed the repeated offense period due to the same kind of crime. In full view of the quantity and frequency of phiphonephone dealt in this case, circumstances after the crime, including the defendant's age, character and behavior, career, environment, motive and consequence of the crime, etc., the sentencing of the court below is determined within a reasonable and appropriate scope, and it is not determined that the sentencing of this case is unfair because it is excessively unreasonable.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the defendant's assertion.

3. We examine ex officio determination on the part of confiscation.

If any seized article is not present at the time judgment is pronounced, the court may pronounce the confiscation of such article.