The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding (related to paragraph (1) of the lower judgment) Defendant did not purchase marijuana as provided in paragraph (1) of the lower judgment.

피고인은 E이 태국 푸껫 현 빠통거리에서 상인에게 무엇 인가를 사는 것을 보았을 뿐이고, 추후에 그것이 대마인 것을 알았다.

The statements of D, which served as the basis for the judgment of conviction of the court below, are not consistent, and therefore are not reliable.

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

2. Determination

A. According to the reasoning of the court below and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is without merit, since the defendant purchased marijuana as follows.

1) The witness D of the lower court did not refer to E at the time of the first statement at the police station, but found the Defendant to purchase marijuana in the frame of the brupt distance.

진술하였으나, 검찰 진술 부터는 원심 법정 진술에 이르기까지 피고인과 E이 백화점에서 식사를 하다가 대마를 사기로 이야기가 되어 피고인과 E이 빠통 거리 골목에 들어가서 대마를 샀고 그들이 구매하는 장면을 직접 보지는 못했다고

was stated.

D's statement seems to be consistent in the part where the defendant purchased marijuana in the remote distance as a whole, and it seems to be reliable because it is impossible to find specific, natural and reasonable grounds for the details of the purchase and the part concerning the situation before and after the purchase.

In addition, it is difficult to view that the initial and partial contents of the police statement differ from those of the police statement as grounds to deny the credibility of the statement.

In other words, in relation to the non-reference of E in the police's initial statement, the circumstances such as the failure to see E are revealed, and such circumstances are acceptable and the non-reference of E is also considered as a reason to deny the credibility of D's statement.