A. Defendant 1) was aware of facts (as to the administration, receipt, and delivery, of the instant Meptacam (201No. 733)) that the Defendant sent the instant Meptacam (as to the instant Meptacam) to a net thousand prison on December 1, 2010 with E (R), S, and X, but the Defendant did not have any fact that the Mepphone was administered in the vehicle to a net prison at the time.

B) On December 1, 2010, the Defendant offered cash of KRW 500,00 to E at the time, and did not deliver KRW 0.3g of opon, as described in the instant facts charged, to E.) on January 27, 2011, the Defendant did not have received KRW 0.6g of opon as described in the instant facts charged, but there was no fact that the Defendant had received KRW 0.6g of opon from E, as described in the instant facts charged, with respect to the receipt of opon from February 18, 2011, the Defendant found E as H district at the time. However, the lower court did not receive KRW 0.6g of opon, as described in the instant facts charged, from E, and found the Defendant guilty of all of the facts that each of the instant opon was delivered to the Defendant on the ground that there was no credibility, such as E, and there was no error in the judgment of the lower court.

2) The lower court’s sentencing (a year of imprisonment with prison labor for crimes Nos. 1 through 4 in its original judgment, and a crime Nos. 5 through 7 in its decision in its original judgment) is deemed to be so unreasonable as to be too unreasonable that the amount of imprisonment for six months, confiscation and collection 1,375,00 won

B. The lower court’s sentencing is too unfortunate and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances, i.e., the Defendant, E, X consistently from the police to the court of the original trial, comprehensively based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court of the first instance regarding the administration of the instant phiphone.