All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

A. The lower court’s sentencing (one year of imprisonment, additional collection of KRW 50,00) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged that the Defendant sold the Mepter (one philopon; hereinafter referred to as the “Melopon”) which is a local mental medicine, to the firstman on June 2015 on the ground that the credibility of the E’s statement and the evidence based on E was insufficient, in light of the circumstance where the witness E made a statement corresponding to the facts charged by the lower court’s witness E, or the relationship between E and the Defendant. The lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) The above sentencing of the lower court’s argument that the sentencing is unfair is too unfortunate and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. (1) On June 2015, the Defendant, on the part of the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of the facts, sold phiphones by deducting KRW 300,000 from the debt amount the Defendant is obliged to pay to E, and then trading phiphones by deducting KRW 300,000 from the payment amount the Defendant is obliged to pay to E.

(2) The lower court determined as follows: E’s legal statement, investigation report (the investigation of the location of the base station in hand-on), E, and Defendant’s new text messages, etc. are presented as evidence consistent with the above facts charged, and E took place on the record that there is a possibility of falsely informing the upper line to store investigation merit on the wind entered into other cases; in fact, the police and the prosecutor’s office have repeated the reversal of the statement; and in the court of the lower court, “The Defendant has a claim of KRW 80,000 against the Defendant, but only 300,000 won was deducted from the printed amount and 500,000 won was returned.

Although the Defendant stated “,” the Defendant’s bank transaction details were examined, the Defendant received the E-the-counter money thereafter.