The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

No. 4 of seized evidence shall be charged to the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant asserted that the Prosecutor’s misapprehension of the legal doctrine had received approximately 30 gramphones from E around September 22, 2015, around 00:00.

There have been a narcotic appraisal report and a seizure protocol as evidence of reinforcement of the confession.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant as to the receipt of approximately 30 grams from E in the facts charged of this case on the ground that there is no evidence to reinforce the confession, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s judgment’s argument of unfair sentencing is unreasonable.

2. The prosecutor’s assertion of misunderstanding the legal principles is sufficient if the confession of the defendant is recognized to the extent that the confession of the defendant is not processed, even if the whole or essential part of the crime is not recognized, even if it is not sufficient to acknowledge the whole or essential part of the crime. In addition, indirect or circumstantial evidence, which is not direct evidence, can also be proven. In addition, if the confession and reinforcement evidence are consistent with each other and it is possible to prove the criminal facts as a whole, it is sufficient to prove the evidence of guilt (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Do8704, Jan. 27, 2006; 2010Do11272, Dec. 23, 2010). In full view of the following circumstances, it is determined that the aforementioned legal principles are sufficient to prove that the defendant and E, G, mobile phone phone call details, drug reaction reaction between the defendant, and the defendant’s indirect evidence that the defendant had received or received the defendant’s phone from the defendant at the time of arrest.

Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion pointing this out is reasonable, and the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the rules of reinforcement of confession.

The defendant.