A. Fact-finding [2014 Highest 217] In relation to the facts constituting a crime paragraphs (1) and (2), the Defendant did not deliver a penphone to H without compensation, and the Defendant did not deliver a penphone (2014 Highest 682) in relation to the facts constituting a crime.

In addition, confession of a defendant made by an investigative agency and the court below shall not be admitted as evidence of guilt pursuant to Article 12 (7) of the Constitution.

B. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on additional collection, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

C. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (one year and four months of imprisonment, additional collection of 1.3 million won, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the Defendant recognized all of the instant crimes at an investigative agency and the lower court, but denies some of the crimes at the trial.

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, i.e., (1) H and L made a statement to the effect that the Defendant was issued a written phone from the investigation agency; (2) the Defendant also acknowledged that he was present voluntarily to the investigation agency and delivered the written phone to H in connection with the case [2014 high group 217]; and (3) the confession was deemed to have been made by the investigation agency in relation to the case [2014 high group 682]; (4) the Defendant submitted approximately 0.2g of the written phone, which was delivered to L to the Defendant by the investigation agency, and submitted about 0.2g of the written phone to H, as indicated in the criminal facts in the judgment of the court below, and delivered the written phone to H.

B. Regarding the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principle, (1) relevant legal principles are applicable.