A. Defendant A (i) has not sold narcotics to Defendant B.

The defendant is in an economic community relationship between the defendant and his father, and the defendant used the money from his father or her father by using the defendant's passbook in Pyeongtaek B with the defendant's use of the money. The money that the defendant received from the defendant B was only wages or living expenses through the above channel, but not remuneration for the sale of narcotics.

Meanwhile, although the Defendant had supplied narcotics from E to B, it can not be evaluated as having sold narcotics to B merely correspond to “joint purchase” or “trade arrangement” between B and B.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which recognized that the defendant sold narcotics to B is erroneous in misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.

Belgium also the sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment, and additional collection) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B’s imprisonment (ten months of imprisonment, confiscation, and collection) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal principles, the Defendant received the payment of narcotics from B, and led the Defendant to the prosecution on the fact that he supplied the narcotics as stated in paragraph (1) of the judgment below.

In addition, the facts constituting the crime of this part are as follows: (a) B, upon examining the details of money paid to the Defendant in its passbook, specified the remittance, which was the name of the purchase price for narcotics, in 13 cases; (b) the Defendant stated the place of purchase and the purchase amount, etc.; (c) 8 of the above 13 cases, 5 cases, which were paid, were finally arranged through re-verification; (d) it is highly probable to fit the truth in light of the specific circumstances; and (e) the Defendant or B did not actually sell narcotics.