The judgment below

The penalty collection portion shall be reversed.

20,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

The additional collection charge shall be equivalent to the above additional collection charge.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (two years of imprisonment, confiscation, and collection) is too unreasonable (the Defendant asserted only “unfair sentencing” in the statement of the grounds for appeal submitted within a lawful period of time, but thereafter argued that the Defendant was erroneous by denying “the fact of the administration of philophones in the middle of October 2019” among the facts charged in the instant case.

However, such misunderstanding of facts cannot be viewed as legitimate grounds for appeal due to the lapse of the submission period of the written reason for appeal.

In addition, the testimony of the witness I of this court, as shown in the defendant's argument, is the statement of the person convicted of committing an act of medication of phiphonephone at the same time and place as the defendant at the same time and place. However, the statement of H, who administered phiphones at the same time and place as the same time and place, is inconsistent with the statement of H, who was convicted of having been convicted of committing an act of medication of phiphones. Also, considering the fact that both the defendant and I have led to the confession of the crime of medication in this part at the investigative agency and the first instance trial, it is difficult to believe in view of the fact that the defendant and I have reversed the existing confession statement because they were sentenced to punishment.

In addition, it is doubtful that the credibility of the confession statement by the defendant's investigative agency and the court below is doubtful or that the statement to reverse is acceptable.

There is no evidence to see, and even if the record is closely examined, there is no reason to reverse this part of the judgment of the court below ex officio.

The Defendant’s assertion that this part of the judgment of the court below is not accepted). 2. In order to sentence confiscation or collection under Article 67 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. ex officio as to the collection portion of the judgment of the court below, the requirements for sunset or collection should be related to the crime for which a public prosecution was instituted. As such, the court cannot render a judgment of conviction or collection as to the facts not recognized in the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do16170, Dec. 15, 2016). In relation to Article 2 of the Criminal Act as indicated in the judgment of the court below, the Defendant is mari