The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, 1) misunderstanding of the legal doctrine or misunderstanding of the facts, i.e., smoking for the receipt and delivery of marijuana related to I (2016 Gohap 1094) and AD-related marijuana (2016 Gohap 1239), the Defendant handled only the Mepta (hereinafter “diphone”; hereinafter “diphone”) and did not deal with it.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles that found the defendant guilty of this part of the charges of marijuana-handling.

2) According to the reasoning of the Defendant’s appeal on November 3, 2017, submitted by the Defendant, it is reasonable to view that the E-related written phone purchase part is disputing the E-related written phone purchase.

The Defendant purchased approximately 10g and 7g of philophones from E, not from E, but from approximately 5g and 1g of philophones.

Nevertheless, it is true that the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the charges.

3) Although there is no evidence to reinforce this part of the facts charged except for the confession of the Defendant, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine that found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.

B. The lower court’s sentence against an unfair defendant in sentencing (a prison term of three years, additional collection of twenty thousand won) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle or mistake of facts

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court that: (i) purchased marijuana from the Defendant or received free of charge as stated in the facts charged from the investigation agency to the lower court; and (ii) smoked with the Defendant.

The consistent statement is made, ② at the time between the date of the instant crime and the time of each statement made by I.