A. The statement of misunderstanding of facts D is inconsistent with objective data, such as the details of currency between the Defendant and D, and the location of the base station, and thus, cannot be believed.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of each of the facts charged of this case based on D's statement and committed an error of mistake of facts.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the court below's determination of guilty of each of the facts charged in this case is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misconception of facts.

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

D refers to a considerable detailed and consistent fact from an investigative agency to the court of the original trial and the court of the trial, and D himself/herself has been provided with or purchased a penphone without compensation from the accused.

D The above statements are generally consistent with the monetary content between the defendant, D and J and the location of the base station (Evidence Records 78 pages, 130 pages, 289 pages).

The Defendant alleged on January 30, 2014 that the location of each cell phone address of D and the Defendant does not coincide with that of each of the Defendant, and that the said location of the base station cannot be the evidence of the crime No. 2-B of the lower judgment. However, each of the above location of the base stations is adjacent to the basin of the river basin, as well as the Defendant stated that there was a fact that there was a fact that the Defendant had been met in the river basin near the river basin from January 30, 2014 to January 18:00 at the time of the prosecutor’s investigation (Evidence 360 of the evidence record) and thus, the Defendant’s allegation cannot be accepted.

B. On January 16, 2014, the Defendant was punished by imprisonment with labor for a violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. at the Seoul Northern District Court on January 16, 201.