A. The Defendant did not receive any delivery from D, or administered any cryptist, of the crypt.

The judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant on the basis of the statement of D without credibility is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

B. In light of the fact that the health status of Defendant wife is not very good at the present of sentencing unfair, and that Defendant has hardened to avoid committing a drug-related crime again, the sentence (one year of imprisonment) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of mistake of facts and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, ① the Defendant led to the Defendant to commit the instant crime in the prosecution investigation; ② the Defendant was arrested and delivered to the Defendant from the investigative agency to the court of the first instance; ③ the Defendant also recognized the fact that the Defendant met D at the time and time as indicated in the facts of the crime in the lower judgment; ④ the Defendant was arrested on May 21, 2016 and conducted a thorough appraisal of the conspiracy, and the Defendant’s response to the training of Meptians all from the part above to 3 cm in the part above the mother to the 3 cm. In full view of the following circumstances, the criminal facts in the lower judgment can be fully recognized.

The defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.

B. There are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that may be newly considered after the decision of the court below on the unfair argument of sentencing.

In addition, in full view of all the sentencing circumstances shown in the records and arguments of this case, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, criminal history, and circumstances after the crime, such as favorable or unfavorable circumstances to the Defendant, the sentence of the lower court is too unfair, even considering the various circumstances alleged by the Defendant on the grounds of appeal.