A. The Defendant does not administer, accept, or administer philophones as stated in the facts constituting a crime at the time of original adjudication.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment, confiscation, and collection) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Although the court below asserted the same purport as the above grounds for appeal, the court below rejected the above argument and found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case by integrating the present evidences on the grounds as stated in its reasoning. In light of the records, the court below's decision is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law of misunderstanding of facts as alleged by the defendant.

[In light of the circumstances discovered by the mother of the first instance court, the defendant's defense, and the result of each appraisal of the defendant's hair, where it is difficult to find out special circumstances to deny credibility, the first instance court's determination on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court is clearly erroneous in light of the substantive spirit of direct and direct examination adopted by the Criminal Procedure Act, or there are exceptional circumstances where it is deemed that maintaining the first instance court's determination on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court is considerably unfair in full view of the results of the first instance court's examination and the results of additional evidence examination conducted until the closing of arguments in the appellate court, the appellate court shall respect the first instance court's determination on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012).

Defendant, such as being unable to believe the result of appraisal, etc.