A. The court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, although the defendant purchased a Metetea crypian jointly with D and delivered the purchase to D, although he did not sell a Metea crypian to C. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of the overall circumstances of the instant case of unreasonable sentencing, the sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant purchased and sold 500,000 won from C through D and Mepta 0.7g by using Mepta, so this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. On October 6, 2005, the Defendant again committed a violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fence) during the repeated period after having been sentenced to ten months to imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. on the part of the instant case on the grounds that the Defendant committed the crime of forging private documents and uttering of the said investigation documents by stealing another person’s personal information in order to avoid punishment after the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol driving, and making and using a report on the state of the driver’s identity, and the quality of the relevant crime is not good. In full view of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, circumstances after the crime, etc., the Defendant’s punishment imposed by the lower court cannot be deemed unfair, and this part of the Defendant’s assertion is also without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.