A. The defendant is guilty of facts as stated in the judgment of the court below.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, inasmuch as there was no fact that the Metetopphone (one philopon; hereinafter “philopon”) was sold to B twice as indicated in the foregoing paragraph, and thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances, i.e., the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, i.e., the first-class ruling of the court below from the investigative agency to the court of the court below.

B. As described in paragraph (1), the Defendant consistently stated that he purchased philophones from Defendant twice through two times, and there is no circumstance to see that B made a false statement, and ② No. 1 of the holding of the lower judgment.

B. At the time and time indicated in the port, text messages and telephone conversations between the Defendant and B are confirmed, and the Defendant alleged that there was no kind of relationship between B and B, but in full view of B without such a kind of relationship and the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant would drink alcohol as the day of the instant crime, the Defendant’s judgment No. 1 in the lower court’s judgment is more reliable.

B. The defendant's assertion on this part is without merit, since it can be sufficiently recognized that he sold phiphones to B two times, such as paragraph (1).

B. It is recognized that the Defendant made partial confession of the instant crime and divided his mistake, etc.

However, the fact that the crime of this case is not good, that the defendant committed the crime of this case repeatedly despite the previous convictions of several times, and that the defendant administered phiphones and sold phiphones beyond smoking marijuana, the sentencing balance with the same crime, and other ages of the defendant.