The appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor shall be dismissed, respectively.

Summary of Reasons for appeal

A. The punishment sentenced by the court below (10 months of imprisonment, additional collection of 6,000 won) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the factual misunderstanding and misapprehension of the legal principles, the test result of the marith test on the Defendant’s hair was “training” as a result of the appraisal of the marithic ingredients of the marithic marith. Thus, the aforementioned test result can be recognized as evidence to reinforce the smoking of marijuana by January 14, 2020 and by January 15, 2020.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined that there was no evidence supporting this part of the facts charged, except the Defendant’s confession, and sentenced the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it can be acknowledged that the defendant smoked from marijuana between February 13, 2020 and February 19, 2020, as stated in the criminal facts, and between February 28, 2020 and March 5, 2020, respectively. However, it can be deemed that the defendant's mother value per month, such as the defendant's mother value, was the 1stm of marith in the research on criminal policies (see, e.g., extract from the 19th right to research on criminal policies, accompanied by the reason for appeal). However, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, including the above country and the narcotics appraisal report, submitted by the prosecutor, cannot be seen as having any result of "marithing" in the part of the above evidence submitted by the defendant.

Therefore, it is insufficient to recognize that the above country and the narcotics appraisal report “sing marijuana around January 14, 2020 and around January 15, 2020” were evidence to reinforce the facts charged.

The judgment of the court below which acquitted the facts charged is just, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles alleged by the prosecutor.

(b) the defendant and the prosecutor;