A. The judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, although the defendant administered a phiphone and delivered a phiphone to D twice as stated in the facts charged in the judgment of the court below, it erred by misunderstanding the facts and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined at the court below and the court below's decision on the assertion of mistake of facts: ① the statement at D's investigative agency and the court of a trial that correspond to this part of the facts charged is consistent and credibility; ② D's husband provided a phiphone to D at the original investigative agency, but the defendant stated that he provided a phiphone to D, as in this part of the facts charged,; ③ the defendant was punished for committing an act without her husband and the act of medication with phiphonephone provided by the defendant; ③ the defendant, even though all of the facts charged in this case was recognized by the investigative agency and the court of the court below, he reversed his statement if he made a false confession, and there was no record of punishment several times for the same kind of crime, and further it is difficult to view that the defendant made a confession that could have been punished during the period of repeated crime due to the same crime, and the defendant's assertion that the above defendant delivered a phiphone cannot be acknowledged as being able to prove the truth of the facts charged.

B. The two-time medication and the two-time gratuitous issuance of a decision on the assertion of unfair sentencing are the crimes.