A. As to the sale of phiphones, the Defendant did not sell phiphones to C around the Busan Dong-gu B hotel on November 1, 2017, as indicated in this part of the facts charged. C made a statement at the lower court that “I have not purchased phiphones from the Defendant,” and reversed the Defendant’s statement at the prosecutor’s office consistent with this part of the facts charged, and on December 3, 2017, there was also the fact that “N, which is the latter half of 40” rather than the Defendant, was examined by the Defendant at the prosecutor’s office, and made a statement consistent with this part of the facts charged. However, since the interrogation protocol stating the above statement was conducted by the prosecutor solely by the Defendant and the prosecutor, it was confirmed only by the prosecutor, this constitutes an unlawful act in violation of Article 243 of the Criminal Procedure Act or in violation of the legal principles as to the procedure of sale of phiphones, it is not admissible as evidence to prove the facts charged.

In addition, the defendant's act of boarding a vehicle C in order to meet with C by carrying a philophone with C after obtaining C's phone is limited to the preliminary stage of trade of philophones, and cannot be deemed to have reached the commencement of execution.

C. Even if the defendant had come to the commencement of the execution, police officers were on board C's vehicle with it.