A. As to the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics (Crimes No. 4 through 7 as indicated in the judgment below), the Defendant did not trade or administer phiphones.

B. The sentence (one-month imprisonment) sentenced by the court below on the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (the crime No. 4 through 7 of the judgment below) is excessively unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the sale and purchase of phiphones and the medication on June 14, 2016, it is sufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant purchased phiphones as indicated in this part of the facts charged and administered them.

We cannot accept this part of the defendant's and his defense counsel's assertion of mistake.

1) The lower court’s witness AA consistently stated the fact that the investigative agency received KRW 300,00 from the Defendant as the purchase price for the philopon from AC to the lower court’s court, and purchased the philopon from AC in Seoul, returned to west, and delivered part of the remaining philopon to the Defendant.

In addition, the witness of the court below and the court of the first instance consistently state the fact that AA was living in the area where AA was able to administer phiphones to the defendant, and whether AA and AD remains. However, it is unclear whether A had been staying in the investigative agency until the court of the court below held that AA was accompanied by AA to the government when it was going to Seoul in order to purchase phiphones from AC to the court of the court below, and that A was living in the Zel to the new wall.

2) The Defendant and AA’s telephone call details also conform to the aforementioned statements by AA.

In other words, AA on the sent details shall be from 10 p.m. on June 12, 2016 to 11 p.m. on June 12, 2016, in Western City, from 10 p.m. to 13 p.m. on the same month.