On April 7, 2016, around 14:00, the Defendant appeared as a witness in the Daegu District Court No. 1, which was located in the 67-ro of Sung-gun, Sung-gun, Sung-gun, Sung-gun, Gyeong-gun, Gyeong-gun, and the above court's violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. against 5, 2016 Highest 5 B, etc.

The defendant purchased a penphone from D with the defendant B and C, and sold it and conspired to divide profits by selling it.

The prosecutor’s question “ does not need.”

The testimony is required to state what is the role of Defendant B at that time.

The prosecutor’s question “ shall not be”.

It is necessary to give testimony that “Around March 2014, Defendant B had talked with a witness in connection with the purchase and sale of philophones.”

It was true that the prosecutor's question "the co-purchase of philophones like philophones is true, or it is not intended to make them shared."

I did not do so with B, and I asked C to open it on the Internet with a well-known Internet, and the telephone was received by C.

Defendant B testified that “at that time, Defendant B would have played the role of purchasing philophones from D and withdrawing the price.”

The prosecutor’s question, “I did not take charge of the price,” and only made a joint purchase.

It is essential that the testimony " and the sale of the philophones purchased to Dozphones is in line with Defendant B's speech.

The question of the prosecutor’s “I not.”

Although the No. C had talked about the Internet, Defendant B was only administered, and there is no fact that Defendant B had talked about selling Defendant B and phiphones.

The testimony at issue is whether there is an excessive difference between the statement made by the investigative agency and the statement made by the investigative agency.

The prosecutor’s question, “I am at that time present, I am at that time,” and “I am at that time.”