The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

except that, for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. The lower court acquitted each of the facts charged against the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (hereinafter “the facts charged in dispute”) due to the ice use.

However, all the facts charged by the Defendant were led to confessions, and the suspect interrogation protocol of the police as to B, text messages sent to and received by the Defendant and B, and the details of remittance to B, etc. are reinforced evidence for confessions.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant not guilty of the facts charged of the dispute or erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the evidence of confession.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (two years and six months of imprisonment, and three years of suspended execution) is too uneasible and unfair.

Judgment of mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles

A. The summary of the facts charged in the dispute is not a person handling narcotics.

1) around April 12, 2019, the Defendant, at the Defendant’s residence located in Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City H and H and I, put tobacco into the Defendant’s residence, and then used sphs in a manner that inhales it with a fire attached thereto. (2) The Defendant used sphs in the same way as indicated in paragraph (1) at the location described in paragraph (1) at the end of April 13, 2019.

3) On April 14, 2019, the Defendant used sects in the same way as 1) at the place described in paragraph (1) at the port located in paragraph (1). 4) On April 15, 2019, the Defendant used sects in the same way as 1) at the place described in paragraph (1) at the port located in paragraph (1).

B. On the grounds delineated below, the lower court determined that the confession of the Defendant to the facts charged in the dispute constitutes the only evidence unfavorable to the Defendant, and thus, it cannot be deemed as evidence of guilt.

1 As a result of the appraisal of the defendant's hair and urine, the synthetic hemp ingredients are the hair and urine of the defendant.