A. The Defendant does not have any fact that he purchased or sold Mesphere amsphere.

B. The sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (ten months of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. According to the records on the assertion of mistake of facts, each statement in D and C's prosecutor's office and court of the court below in D and C are mutually consistent and specific, except for a detailed part, and thus, credibility is recognized. In full view of the monetary statements in D and C's prosecutor's office and court of the court below and the defendant's each statement in D and the court of the court below, it can be acknowledged that the defendant sold Mesac

(B) The defendant alleged that D and C had met at the time of Busan, but D and C had met the defendant at a charnel house operated by D to find a job. However, according to the records, D and C had gone to Busan at the time, and it appears that D and C had gone to Busan at the time of the arrival of the defendant, and they had gone to Busan again. If the defendant could come to meet the defendant in Busan, it would not have to go to Busan even by telephone if it would have to go to Busan. If D asks the defendant to find employment, it would be difficult for D to go to go to Busan even if it comes to any other situation if D asks the defendant to find employment, but in the opposite case, D's argument cannot be accepted).

The Defendant’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing does not reflect the Defendant’s crime of this case; the Defendant has eight identical criminal records, and the sentence among them reaches seven times; the Defendant committed the crime of this case on the following day after he was released from the same crime; the Defendant’s quantity of the Mestopians sold by the Defendant reaches approximately five grams; and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime; and other circumstances after the crime, etc.