The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant asserts to the effect that “the period of committing the crime with respect to the receipt of marijuana by the Defendant is not less than one year, and this part of the facts charged is not specified” in the appellate brief submitted subsequent to the lapse of the period for filing the appellate brief.

However, during the second trial of the lower court, a prosecutor applied for amendments to an amendment to an indictment with the content that "from September 2018 to September 2019" changed the date and time of the crime to "from September 2018 to December 2018," and the subject of the judgment was changed following the approval by the lower court.

The defendant's assertion not only is about the facts charged before the change, but also it is difficult to view that the period of crime as stated in the judgment of the court below is an unspecified one.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

As stated in the judgment below, the defendant did not call for marijuana existing in D and E, but divided it from E and divided it into D.

As above, even though the process of accepting marijuana is different from the substantive facts, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the collection of 10 months of imprisonment, 12,00 won) is too unreasonable.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court of first instance as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant may recognize the fact that the Defendant sent marijuana to D and E as indicated in the lower judgment.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

① The Defendant, in the lower court’s court, led to the confession of all the facts charged of this case, and at the same time, denied the crime by asserting that this part of the grounds for appeal is the same.

As to this, the defendant.