A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

The seized District Public Prosecutor's Office of Chuncheon, 2017.

A. The first instance court found the Defendant guilty of all the charges and sentenced the Defendant to two years of imprisonment, confiscation of seized evidence Nos. 3 and 4, and additional collection of KRW 2.6 million.

The first instance court found the defendant guilty of all the charges of the second instance court and sentenced the defendant to collect 2 years of imprisonment, 1 to 4 of seized evidence (No. 299 of pressure in 2017) and 1 of evidence No. 201 (No. 536 of pressure in 2017) respectively.

B. The Defendant appealed against the lower court of the first instance on the grounds of the mistake of facts (as to paragraphs 2 and 3 of the facts constituting the lower court’s crime No. 1), and the illegality of sentencing, on the grounds that the lower court’s sentencing was unfair.

Before remanding, the first and second trials were held together with the lower court, and the Defendant did not accept the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts, and the lower court sentenced to: (a) three years and six months of imprisonment; (b) the evidence Nos. 1 through 4 of 299; (c) Nos. 536 of 2017’s pressure No. 536 of 2017; and (d) Nos. 3 and 4 of 2016’s pressure No. 6254 of 201; and (c) the Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office imposed penalty of KRW 4,353,00,00, respectively.

(c)

The Defendant appealed against the judgment of the lower court prior to remand on the ground of misapprehending the legal doctrine on the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

In regard to this, the Supreme Court held that, among the facts charged against the defendant, the credibility of the legal statement of E in the court of first instance, which seems consistent with this, in the case where ① the defendant sold approximately 10g of 100,000 won to E Mampa (hereinafter referred to as “prophone”) to E in the middle or lower order of February 2016, and ② the defendant received and delivered approximately 1g of opphone from E in the middle or lower order of February 2016, the defendant received and delivered approximately 1g of opphonephone from E in the middle or lower order of February 2016.

In light of other evidence, there is no evidence to prove that there is no reasonable doubt as to the above facts charged, and there is no evidence to prove that there is a sufficient conviction.

Even if it is difficult to see the above facts charged, it shall be remanded.