A. The Defendant was guilty of each of the instant crimes on the basis of the E’s statement without credibility, and the lower court found the Defendant guilty of erroneous determination of facts. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the basis of the following facts: (a) the Defendant administered a penphone together with E or purchased a penphone from E on May 2012, 2012; (b) the Defendant did not purchase a penphone, such as the instant facts charged.

B. The sentence of the lower court (the penalty of two years of imprisonment, 4,300,000 won) is too unreasonable in light of all the conditions of sentencing.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the court below's decision on the assertion of mistake of facts and evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the trial court, i.e., the defendant alleged that E's statement was not reliable because the date, time, place, amount of price, method of payment, frequency of medication, etc. However, in light of the following: "E has consistently stated the fact that E administered phiphones with the defendant around the facts charged in this case, sold phiphones to the defendant; E has been investigated by an investigative agency; E has a specific time and place based on objective data, such as telephone contents and details of deposit, etc., it cannot be deemed that the whole E's statement is not reliable because some statements on the place, etc. of E's statement are inconsistent; ② the defendant also recognized the fact that E was transferred from each date and time of the facts charged in this case; ② the Doster in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu and the E's house located in the same Dong (Evidence No. 360, the prosecutor's interrogation protocol of the defendant against the defendant; ③ the defendant's suspect 3. 2005.