Defendant

All appeals filed by A and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentencing of Defendant A’s 2’s original decision is too unreasonable.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor 1, the lower court found Defendant A guilty of this part of the facts charged, although it could sufficiently be recognized that Defendant A received Mept A from C on June 12, 2015, and the lower court acquitted Defendant A of this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2) The sentencing of the judgment below 1 and 2 against the unjust Defendants is too uncomfortable.

2. Determination

A. On June 12, 2015, the summary of this part of the facts charged was received from C a disposable injection machine containing approximately 0.5g of Meptians, a local mental medicine, from C, and received from C, the summary of this part of the facts charged, Defendant A was not a narcotics handler, and around June 12, 2015.

2) On June 11, 2015, the lower court determined that C had made a statement to the effect that C had, at an investigative agency around 22:00, placed her her her caturine purchased from L from 205 L in Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, and offered it to Defendant A free of charge, but in court, it is insufficient to recognize this part of the facts charged or to recognize Defendant A’s cather her catum with any other person on the same date, time, place, and the dispute between Defendant A and L at the above her catum and any other cather cather catus in the table 205 included in the above her catum 205.