A. Although the Defendant did not sell a philophone to F, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, it erred by misapprehending the fact and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of fact and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the trial court and the trial court, namely, ① the F’s investigation agency that purchased approximately five g of phiphones from the Defendant at the date and place of the lower judgment’s decision, to the lower court’s trial and the trial court, and the F’s investigation agency that presented witness to the Defendant at the scene of purchasing phiphones from the Defendant to the J, and each statement from the investigation agency to the lower court that: (a) the F had presented to the J, while holding in accompanying F, at the scene of purchasing phiphones from the Defendant; and (b) each statement from the investigation agency to the J, from around September, 2014 to the court of the lower trial, was submitted with respect to the relevant crime, date and place; (c) method of contact with the Defendant; (d) method of preparing the purchase price of phiphones; and (e) method of purchasing 5 gphones from the J.

The statement (J saw I as approximately five g, and clickphones contained in vinyl blicker, but clicked in office with low weight, and later exceeded 3g of this Article.

(3) At the investigation stage, the Defendant made a statement: (a) around August 2014 at the investigation stage, the Defendant frequently met F; (b) stated that E is compared to L Park which the Defendant is mainly the Defendant’s L Park; and (c) the Defendant submitted the receipt ledger of the credit cooperative (not indicating the number of union members: M and union members: the name of union members is not indicated) by asserting that F is the Defendant’s superior election, but the Defendant submitted the receipt ledger of the credit cooperative. However, not only the remittance details that the Defendant remitted to F but also the remittance details to the Defendant