A. The Defendant did not sell a penphone to N from Masan to February 8, 2013, from December 22, 2012.

B. Sentencing

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant asserted the same purport in the lower court.

As to this, the lower court: (a) purchased philophones from the Defendant on January 2017, which was found by evidence; (b) around March 2013, 2013; and (c) after being sentenced to a criminal investigation and trial as to the purchase, medication, and provision of philophones; and (b) around September 2013; and (c) around January 2017; and (d) in this court, consistently as stated in the criminal facts.

In light of the facts stated in the facts constituting a crime, N made a statement that: (a) N made a call in Masan or made a withdrawal of cash from the cash withdrawal machine located in Masan; (b) there was no particular connection in Masan to make a visit from the Defendant to Masan for any purpose other than for purchasing Masan; (c) N already received a sentence and completed the execution of sentence; and (b) there was no particular reason to harm the Defendant by means of falsehood, etc., the Defendant may sufficiently recognize that the Defendant sold N a phiphone, as stated in the facts constituting a crime of the lower judgment, in light of the following:

The decision was determined.

Examining the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the result of the defendant examination conducted in the trial of the party, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of law of misunderstanding of facts as alleged by the defendant.

Defendant

The argument is without merit.

B. As to the unfair argument of sentencing, the lower court committed the crime of selling each drug during the period of the same repeated crime, under the favorable circumstances that the Defendant recognized some of the crimes and reflects, and that there are many persons punished for the crimes related to narcotics.