A. In relation to the case of the High Court of the misunderstanding of facts-related District Court 2013 High Court 2013 High Court 1736, the Defendant did not arrange the trade of philophones.

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

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances are acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below's decision on the assertion of mistake of facts: ① the defendant prepared by the investigative agency a written statement recognizing that he mediated the trade of phiphones with F and M (No. 2013Dadan1736) at the investigation agency; ② the defendant recognized the facts constituting the crime in this part in the process of questioning with F (No. 36 pages of the above evidence record); ③ the defendant purchased phiphones with the defendant consistently from the investigative agency to the court at the time of the trial; ③ the F consistently stated that the defendant purchased phiphones. The above F did not make a statement on the date and time of the statement from the defendant at the time of making a statement at the investigative agency; but this appears to have been natural, and it appears that the defendant had no essential change in the content of the purchase and sale of phiphones as stated in the judgment.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. Although the Defendant’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing is faithfully engaged in the investigation by an investigative agency and the court’s trial, the crimes of narcotics, such as this case, are highly harmful to society, strict punishment is required, and the Defendant has a record of criminal disposition on several occasions, including the same criminal records, and the instant case has a record of criminal disposition.