All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

A. The defendant (misunderstanding of facts and guilty part) committed an error in the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant, although the defendant did not receive approximately 1.6 g of Meart clopon (hereinafter "philopon") from D, such as the facts charged, there was no fact that the defendant received approximately 1.6 g of Melopon.

B. Prosecutor 1) The Defendant, as to the facts charged, erred by misapprehending the facts in the judgment of the court below that acquitted the Defendant even though he administered phiphones three times, such as the charge.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (the imprisonment of eight months, additional collection of KRW 720,00) is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant alleged that the lower court’s assertion of mistake of facts was identical to the grounds for appeal of mistake of the above facts, and the lower court stated that “The Defendant and the defense counsel met D at the time and place stated in the facts constituting the crime in the lower judgment, but they would pay D money borrowed from the previous Defendant.”

The defendant extended 20,000 won to a certain end of the dispute with D without complying with the promise to repay D money on his job, and the defendant borrowed money more than 200,000 won at the above conference. At the time, the defendant was memoryd on the above telephone, but the defendant did not know whether he was packing the telephone, and the defendant argued to the effect that the defendant did not receive the telephone from D, and that the confession during the investigation process is a false statement based on the investigator's meeting and intimidation. Thus, the first time, D was identified as the defendant as the person who voluntarily delivered the phone at the time of the investigation by the police, and the investigator became aware only of the defendant according to the above statement, and that the investigator was not particularly identified as the defendant, and that D was not a specific situation.