1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against Defendant A and the judgment of the court of second instance shall be reversed.

Defendant

A. Imprisonment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles (the violation of the Narcotics Control Act (narcotics) in the judgment of the court below of the second instance) is deemed to have issued a forged medical opinion to a doctor in accordance with the Defendant’s prescribing “chloatidine”. However, at the time, the Defendant was administering “chloatidine” after receiving medical examination and prescription from the doctor in a situation where he suffers from chronic dystyp infection. Thus, the Defendant did not violate the Narcotics Control Act.

2) At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state that he lacks the ability to discern things and make decisions due to the mental retardation, shock disorder, and bipolartic disorder.

3) The punishment (one year of imprisonment, two years and six months of imprisonment) of the lower judgment that was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence of the first instance judgment against the Defendants (Defendant A: 1 year of imprisonment, Defendant B’s imprisonment with prison labor for three months and three months of imprisonment) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance on the defendant's ex officio judgment against the defendant A were sentenced to the judgment of the court of first instance, and the defendant appealed against the judgment of the court of second instance, and the court of second instance decided to consolidate the two appeals cases.

Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act provides that each crime of the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, one punishment shall be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. As such, the judgment of the court of second instance cannot be maintained

Nevertheless, the defendant's mistake of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and argument of mental or physical disorder is still subject to the judgment of this court.

3. Determination as to Defendant A’s misunderstanding of facts, misapprehension of legal principles, and assertion of mental or physical disorder

A. The Defendant also asserted the same purport as the above grounds for appeal in the lower court’s determination as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine.