The judgment below

The 1-B, d, and d, of the judgment of the court below, shall be sentenced to imprisonment for three years with prison labor for the crime No. 1 in the judgment of the court below.

1. Progression of litigation and scope of adjudication of this court;

A. The prosecutor prosecuted the Defendant on the charge of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (e.g., conduct), fraud, and attack.

[2] On April 6, 2018, the first instance court rendered a confession as to the facts charged in the 2017 Gohap441 and 2018 Gohap75 on April 6, 2018, and denied the charges charged in the 2018 Gohap74.

On May 16, 2018, the prosecutor tried to punish three years of imprisonment, two years of imprisonment, confiscation, and additional collection for the remaining facts charged in the case of 2018Gahap74,75 and 2017Gahap441.

On June 8, 2018, the lower court sentenced each of the crimes of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (compacting), among the 6th trial of June 2018, the crime of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (compacting) with respect to the importation of phiphones, among the crimes of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (compacting) was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for three years, for one year and six months, for 2018Dahap74, and for one year and one year, for confiscation, and additional collection, for each of the crimes of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (compacting) with respect to phiphones, among the cases of the 2017

On this basis, the Defendant appealed on the ground of mistake of facts and unreasonable sentencing regarding the 2018 Gohap74 case.

B. The first instance court prior to remand (Seoul High Court 2018No1794) went through a trial in ordinary proceedings without delivering a notice on a participatory trial to the Defendant on the case, which was joined by the lower court prior to the remanding and returning ex officio, and without confirming the Defendant’s intention to do so. As such, the entire trial proceedings were unlawful and procedural acts conducted in such unlawful trial proceedings are invalid, and the Defendant expressed his/her wish to be a participatory trial is not cured. Thus, the above defects are not cured.