The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not request B to deliver a stroke-m, which is a local mental medicine, and the Defendant did not know that B was a stroke-m, and there was no awareness or criminal intent to possess a stroke-mm, which is a stroke-m.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the intention of possession of a local mental medicine.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by each evidence duly adopted and investigated at the lower court and the first instance court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant can sufficiently recognize that B had been aware of the fact that the goods are strokems.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is rejected.

1) Joint Defendant

B led to the confession of the facts charged in this case in the court of original judgment.

2) On July 14, 2015, the Defendant sent to B a letter stating that “I do not drink a water surface guidance to be provided in the pipe,” “I wish to look at the water surface,” and “I am see at the time of a trial, I am see at the time of a trial, I am see, I am see, I am see, and I am am see,” and

3) B이 건넨 약은 졸 피 뎀 7 정과 위장약 7 정으로 엄지손가락 크기의 비닐에 쌓여 있었고, 비닐 겉면에는 B이 작성한 쪽지가 붙여져 있었는데, 피고인은 수사기관에서 ‘ 평소 제가 복용한 것과 같은 약이므로 확인하는 순간 수면제인 것을 금방 알아챌 수 있었다’ 고 진술하기도 하였다.

4) The Defendant’s intent to “to obtain the water surface system” was that the content of the above letter “to bring about a diagnosis that may prescribe the exemption from water.”

Although there is a change in the medical certificate, it seems that the medical certificate could have been delivered sufficiently to the defendant through normal procedure.