A. misunderstanding of facts (as to the judgment of the court below of the second instance), the defendant received KRW 1 million as part of the automobile price from L, and Kim Gambox sold Kim in large volume, and sent it within the meaning of massage or appearance, and even though the defendant did not sell a phiphone to L, the court below erred in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Unreasonable sentencing (as to the judgment of the court of first instance), the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (as to imprisonment of one year and six months, confiscation, collection 301,50 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the first instance court, each of the above appeals cases was tried concurrently. The criminal facts of the second lower court on the defendant are concurrent crimes with the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fence) and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, which are stated in the first head of the second lower judgment on May 30, 2012, and the criminal facts of the first instance judgment do not constitute concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Thus, the criminal facts of each of the lower judgment on the criminal facts of each of the lower judgment should be sentenced separately. In this regard, each of the lower judgment is not reversed ex officio, and each of

B. The judgment on the assertion on unfair sentencing (as to the judgment of the court below of first instance) states that the defendant made a confession of all the crimes of this case and made a statement that his mistake will be divided in depth, 4.2g of the penphonephone purchased by the defendant is seized to an investigation agency and not distributed among the time, 4.2g of the penphones purchased by the defendant is not distributed among the time, and the defendant actively cooperates in the narcotics investigation by informing the investigation agency of the trade of the penphones by other narcotics, her child is committed by the defendant, and her person desires to take a preference against the defendant, but the crime of this case is administered, provided, and provided by the defendant after purchasing the penphonephones.