The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

The seized evidence1 to 4 shall be confiscated.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment imposed by the lower court (along 10 months of imprisonment, confiscation, and collection 30,00 won) is too unreasonable.

B. On July 4, 2019, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that there was no supporting evidence other than the Defendant’s confession, on the facts charged that “the Defendant, around July 4, 2019, sent approximately 1g of philopon (China’s Chinese nationality) sent through Kwikset service articles, and received philopon from E,” but there was evidence for reinforcement other than the Defendant’s confession supporting the said facts charged. (ii) The above sentence imposed by the lower court is unreasonable because it is too uneasible evidence other than the Defendant’s confession.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle of prosecutor

A. In a case where the confession of a defendant is an unfavorable evidence against the defendant, the confession shall not be admitted as evidence of guilt (see Article 310 of the Criminal Procedure Act). Thus, in a case where the defendant was convicted of facts charged on the sole basis of the confession of the defendant without any supporting evidence, it shall be deemed that there was an error of law affecting

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do7835, Nov. 29, 2007). Since substantive concurrent crimes are several crimes, reinforcement evidence for confessions as to each crime should be required.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10937 Decided February 14, 2008, etc.). Meanwhile, evidence of confession is sufficient to the extent that it can be recognized that the confession of a defendant is not processed, but true, even if the whole or essential part of the crime is not recognized.

In addition, indirect or circumstantial evidence, which is not direct evidence, can also be reinforced evidence, and if facts constituting a crime can be acknowledged as a whole as evidence of guilt, it is sufficient to establish evidence of guilt.

Supreme Court Decision 2007Do3041 Decided July 12, 2007 and Supreme Court Decision 2008Do7883 Decided November 27, 2008.