A. In full view of the fact-finding and misunderstanding of the legal principles on the Act on the Control of Narcotics (the part concerning the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics) and the evidence duly submitted by the prosecutor, the court below found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges, despite the fact that the Defendant sold phiphones to S twice.

B. The lower court’s sentence (two million won of a fine) imposed on the Defendant is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Determination of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles 1) The summary of this part of the facts charged is not a person handling narcotics. (A) On October 2012, the Defendant: (a) around 10g of psychotropic drugs-related psychotropic drugs (i.e., one philopon; hereinafter “philopon”); (b) 3.5 million won (hereinafter “philopon”); and (c) sold philopon.

B) Around December 2012, the Defendant: (a) purchased 10g of opphones from S in the “U” or side parking lot located in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City T and traded opphones with approximately 3,500,000 won in return. (b) The lower court determined that: (c) there was a witness S’s statement as the most reliable evidence that corresponds to the facts charged; (d) there was a witness S’s statement as the most reliable evidence that corresponds to this part of the facts charged; (c) it is difficult to view S as having been a hot mind of S at the time of the arrest, such as murdering V in the form of harm caused by narcotics and making the dispatched police officer statement that she escaped together with all names; and (d) considering the contents and attitude of S’s statement at investigation agency and court; and (e) the result of the mental appraisal of S, it appears that S first made a pure motive to purchase the phone rather than finding the cause of his own problem; and (e) it appears that S first made a statement in a criminal case.