A. Of the facts charged in the instant case of mistake of facts, there is an error of misconception of the fact that the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the above facts charged, even though the Defendant did not purchase a phiphone from L, on December 12, 2010.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, namely, L consistently stated from an investigative agency to the court of the lower court that sold phiphones to the Defendant at the same date and place as stated in the facts charged in the instant case. In light of all circumstances such as the motive of the statement and the existence of body, it appears that the Defendant is credibility in the statement. In light of such circumstances, the Defendant’s purchase of phiphones from L at the same time and place is recognized, and thus, the Defendant’

B. It is recognized that the crime of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fence) by the purchase of phiphones, among the instant crimes regarding the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing, is in a concurrent crime under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. However, the instant crime cannot be deemed to be less than the nature of the instant crime in light of the frequency of medication and purchase as three times of phiphones administered and purchased phiphones. The Defendant committed the instant crime again during the period of suspension of execution, even though he was sentenced to two years of imprisonment for the same crime on July 20, 201, even if he was sentenced to two years of suspended sentence for the same crime on July 20, 201, taking into account the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, home environment, background and consequence leading to the instant crime, circumstances before and after the instant crime, etc., and various sentencing conditions as

3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is without merit and it is in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.