A. The Defendant, as indicated in the instant facts charged, did not arrange for the trade of philophones between D and E, as indicated in the instant facts charged.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court (a year of imprisonment, an additional collection of KRW 200,00) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Except in exceptional cases where it is deemed significantly unfair to maintain the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance trial, the appellate court does not reverse without permission the first instance judgment on the ground that the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance trial is different from the appellate court’s judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4994, Nov. 24, 2006). 2) The Defendant asserted the same purport in the lower court. Accordingly, the lower court stated that “(1) D was delivered from the police to the Defendant at the time and place indicated in the facts charged in the instant case from the police to the court of the lower trial, and delivered KRW 200,000 to the Defendant, and delivered the phone with the “E” as a pen.

A consistent statement in the court below, and the attitude of statement in the court below was serious; ② The defendant first denied the fact that it was made with D, at the time and place as stated in the facts charged in the instant case; and on the other hand, the defendant introduced D “E” and “E” to the effect that “E” was ambiguous; thereafter, when the defendant’s mobile phone conversations was discovered, the contents of the statement were contradictory and naturalized, such as recognizing the fact that introduced D “E” to the police on April 2, 2016; ③ the defendant reported to the police to the effect that he recognized the fact of administering narcotics, but denied the fact of administering narcotics, but the defendant denied the medication.