Although it is not included in the statement of grounds for appeal submitted within the prescribed period, the defendant is not included in the facts constituting the crime of the original judgment.

(a).

In relation to the delivery of each philophone in collusion with G, so it is disputed to the effect that there is no separate crime except for purchase, so considering the contents of the statement in G's investigation agency and the part of the defendant's statement in the original trial, the above philophone is deemed to have been delivered to G by a separate criminal intent after being reverted to the defendant's share of the defendant, and the above philophone is evaluated to have been delivered to G by a separate criminal intent. Thus, the defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted.

(2) On September 27, 2002, the court below held that the defendant was sentenced to a fine of five million won on December 16, 207 and completed the execution of the sentence on July 24, 2009. However, although the defendant was found to have committed the crime of this case on September 27, 2002, the defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of three years on August 27, 2005, one year and four months of imprisonment on February 16, 2007, one year and two months of imprisonment on February 16, 2007, and five million won of fine on December 20, 2007, and the execution of the sentence was completed on March 23, 201, and there is a need to punish the defendant again during the period of a repeated crime, and there is a significant possibility that the defendant might have suffered serious harm and injury to the health and welfare of the people, and there is a need to punish the defendant again during the period of the crime of this case.