The judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant as to this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: “No person other than a narcotics handler may trade phiphones, which are a local mental medicine, and the Defendant is not a narcotics handler.

On September 19, 2016, the Defendant received KRW 100,000 from E, and sold phiphones to the above E in the F-sale Office in Boan-si, the Defendant sold phiphones in a way that enables the F-sale Office to deliver philophones concealed in the wall packaging box.

Accordingly, the defendant purchased and sold philophones.

[....]

B. The lower court determined that, in light of the relationship between the Defendant and E before September 19, 2016, the Defendant told that he would send a penphone to E first, in light of the statement of E, consistent with this part of the facts charged,

In light of the fact that it is difficult to believe, the risk and cost of sending phiphones in China, etc., the price is a small amount, and E sets the amount of phiphones under an agreement with the defendant.

While there is no statement about the quantity, in light of the E’s attitude of statement in E’s court, it is difficult to believe that the Defendant’s statement to the police and the prosecutor’s office that some confessions are made also, in light of the credibility of the above E’s statement, and the Defendant denies this part of the facts charged from the second interrogation of the prosecution, and the remaining evidence alone is insufficient to recognize this part of the facts charged, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on this part of the facts charged.

(c)

(1) the review.