A. 1) On February 12, 2017, the Defendant only stayed in D’s residence due to circumstances, and there is no fact that the Defendant provided D with opphones and administered opphones.

2) On May 13, 2017, the Defendant did not have purchased or administered philophones with E with regard to the purchase and medication of philophones.

B. The sentence of the lower court (an additional collection of KRW 1.6 months and KRW 2.50,000,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the provision and medication of a phiphone on February 12, 2017, the Defendant’s assertion on this part is without merit, since the Defendant’s provision of phiphones to D as indicated in the lower judgment, and the fact that phiphones were administered is recognized.

(1) On February 14, 2017, D was investigated on the part of the police investigation on another case, and the response to the training of phiphones was administered on the philophones, which was received from the Defendant at his residence, and the fact that philophones were administered on the philophones. The confession was made on the facts of the crime of this case.

After the investigation stage to the original trial, D administered phiphones from the Defendant at a relatively consistent date and place stated in the facts charged.

was stated.

D. On the other hand, the defendant recognized the fact that he had been in the residence of D on the date of the instant case, but did not meet D on the same day, sent D in the course of the next day, and he immediately left Daegu.

However, according to the information of each cell phone used by the Defendant and D at the time, D appears to have been in the above residence from 16:35 on the day of this case to the new wall from the next day, and the Defendant had stayed in the above residence until 16:25 on the following day.