A. Defendant (1) did not err by misapprehending the facts of the lower judgment [as to the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. by October 9, 2014 and each person on October 25, 2014], Defendant (as to the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. by the lower court’s order 320- group 320- group 320- group 20, Oct. 9, 2014, Defendant did not sell each phiphone to M on October 9, 2014,

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) The sentence of the lower court (a 3 years of imprisonment, an additional collection of 23.7 million won) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor’s (1) misunderstanding the fact [as to the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc., committed on October 19, 2014 and Oct. 30, 2014, the lower court’s judgment ] and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, including the N’s statement at N’s prosecutor’s office (as to the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc., by the Defendant, etc., on October 30, 2014, the lower court reversed the N’s statement that N did not purchase a phiphone from the Defendant at the court of the lower court, but in light of the background of the reversal of the statement, etc., it is difficult to believe N’s statement at the court of the lower court as it is). The Defendant sufficiently recognized that N sold a phiphone on October 19, 2014 and on October

Nevertheless, the court below acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the lower court’s determination on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion in detail on the grounds of the “determination on the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion” in the written judgment.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in comparison with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as alleged by the Defendant.