All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant (unfair punishment)’s imprisonment (one year and two months of imprisonment, and additional collection) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (not guilty part) ① The defendant’s confession statement on each of the facts charged was made in a particularly reliable state. As such, U.S. witness’s statement in the court of original instance, the admissibility of evidence is recognized in accordance with Article 316(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

② In full view of the appraisal results of each narcotic appraisal report on the Defendant’s climatics and hairs, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine, even though the Defendant fully recognized that he purchased and sold or administered crophones or dMAs as indicated in each of the facts charged.

(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) The court below's admissibility of the part concerning U's testimony in U's testimony of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles is judged as inadmissible, considering the circumstances in its reasoning in detail as to the prosecutor's assertion on this part of U's testimony in the "not guilty part" of the judgment of the court below (Article 10-14 to 13-6 of the judgment of the court below), and considering the circumstances in its reasoning, it is difficult to see that the confession statement of U was made in a particularly reliable state, and therefore, U's statement in this part of U's testimony is inadmissible. In light of the records in this case, a thorough examination of the judgment of the court below in this case is just and acceptable, and there is no error of mistake

(2) If the remaining evidence is the probative value of the evidence, the key evidence supporting each of the facts charged lies only in the assessment of narcotics against the Defendant’s defense and hair.