The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Documents submitted by the defendant after the deadline for submission of the grounds for appeal elapses shall be considered only to the extent it supplements the grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, materials used by the Defendant did not contain ingredients as a raw material for narcotics, and it was impossible to manufacture Mesponises (i.e., one philopon; hereinafter “philopon”) in accordance with the manufacturing process delivered, and there was no risk.

This part of the crime cannot be punished as an impossible crime under Article 27 of the Criminal Act.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years and six months of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, Article 27 (Impossible Crime) of the Criminal Act provides, “The punishment shall be imposed when there is a danger even if the occurrence of a result is impossible due to the means of enforcement or mistake of the subject matter: Provided, That the punishment may be mitigated or remitted.”

An impossible attempted attempt refers to a case where an attempted crime is punished due to the risk of such act, even though there is a criminal intent, and there is no possibility of the result or infringement of legal interests from the beginning due to the means or mistake of the object.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Do2313, Oct. 23, 1998). Here, “Inability of the occurrence of a result” means that the realization of the elements of a crime is impossible in any case by nature of a criminal act.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2019Do97 Decided May 16, 2019). Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court may punish the Defendant as an attempt to manufacture a phiphone for profit, on the ground that it is probable that the Defendant could have manufactured the phiphone if he/she manufactured the phiphone properly according to the delivery method.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is justified.