The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Of the facts charged by mistake of facts, the Defendant did not possess marijuana in relation to the possession of marijuana.

Cannabis found in the Cudio D and in the vicinity of the building is not the defendant.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment, confiscation, and collection) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances, the lower court determined that the Defendant could have sufficiently recognized that the seized marijuana was possessed under his/her de facto control, by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined.

Part of the marijuana of this case was discovered in the Cudio D where the Defendant was residing and seized.

The Defendant alleged that he went to H not later than four days prior to the date of the seizure of marijuana. However, considering the following, the Defendant’s assertion in this part is not persuasive: (a) considering that he was living in the Defendant and stated that he did not have a director as H; (b) the Defendant voluntarily went to a director as H; (c) the Defendant stated that some of his own animals were still remaining; and (d) the marijuana confiscated in the subparagraph D appears to have been stored in the state where it was not transferred for a considerable period of time.

Among the marijuana of this case, the remainder was discovered in the Cubum-side forest and seized, which seems to be due to the fact that the police was dispatched, and the Defendant took the marijuana built on the rooftop as a pool forest.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that he did not own a rooftop marijuana, but there was no room for him, but the stairs from Cudio D to the rooftop, and the leaves of the hemp dried on the roadside were fluordh, and the defendant did not hear any information from the police, but left in a direction on the rooftop.