The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, at the time of committing the crime, was in a state where he administered phiphonephones, and was in a state where he was found to have lost his mind and body or was in a state of mental and physical weakness.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment, increase of No. 1, confiscation of evidence, additional collection of KRW 200,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Although the Defendant alleged the same purport in the lower court’s argument, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s allegation on the grounds of detailed reasons as to the “judgment on the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion” by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined.

In addition to the following circumstances acknowledged by the above evidence, the judgment of the court below is just and there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

subsection (b) of this section.

① Comprehensively taking account of the circumstances leading up to the instant crime, the circumstances after the commission of the instant crime, the statement made by the Defendant to the investigation agency, etc., it cannot be deemed that the Defendant had no or weak ability to discern things at the time of the instant crime.

② Even if the Defendant was in a state of mental or physical loss or mental weakness by administering narcotics, the Defendant, even on May 20, 2014, prior to the occurrence of the instant crime, can be found to have been subject to criminal punishment due to the Defendant’s attempt to prevent the instant crime by administering a phiphone and attaching it to a hotel administered by customers in a total of 125 guest rooms among the 128 guest rooms with a total of 128 guest rooms, and attaching it to the 125 guest rooms. In light of the above, the Defendant could have predicted the risk that may occur in the process of administering a phiphonephone, even if he predicted the risk that may occur in the course of administering a phiphonephone, thereby leaving the state of mental or physical disorder. Therefore, the Defendant’s above act constitutes a free act in the so-called cause under Article 10(3) of the Criminal Act