A. The judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of this part of the crime, although the defendant did not administer philophones like the crime under paragraph (1) of the judgment of the court below, is erroneous.

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

2. Determination

A. The Defendant, in the lower court’s determination on the assertion of mistake of facts, was also disputing to the same purport as the grounds for appeal.

In light of the following circumstances, i.e., ① the date and time indicated in paragraph (1) of the crime in the original judgment, and the Defendant and I consistently made a statement that “H had observed the administration of phiphones at the place,” ② the prosecutor’s office and the court of original instance stated that “H had carried the core chips on the cell phone,” and that it is consistent with the Defendant’s statement that “I and I chips were transferred to Kel as an issue of chips with I and cell phone core chips” without direct witness, the court below found H’s testimony to have been reliable, ③ the date and time of the crime in question, and place of the crime in question, ③ there was no reason to deem H to have been administered phiphones only for the Defendant, and ④ the I stated that it was not consistent with the Defendant’s statement in light of the circumstance and content of the crime in question, including the statement that “I and I chips were sent to the Defendant only for the purpose of administering Ha’s phone.”

Defendant, I and H, respectively.