A. Although the Defendant did not sell or provide a philophone to C, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court convicted all of the charges of this case against the Defendant, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (one year and ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the following facts are revealed: (i) C consistently states the situation from the investigative agency to the court of the court below; (ii) it is not possible to find any contradictions in the statement (the partial reversal of the purchase price does not reject the entire statement of C); (iii) D consistently states the facts consistent with C’s statement; (iv) it voluntarily surrenders to the investigative agency following the purchase of phiphones; and (iv) it is impossible to find any motive or circumstance that C and D could make a false statement. In light of the above, the facts charged of this case against the Defendant should be fully recognized.

B. As to the assertion on unfair sentencing, the Defendant is on administration with liver cancer, and the Defendant has to undergo three-time blood speculation per week due to kidne disease, but the Defendant denies and does not reflect the Defendant’s criminal act; the Defendant repeated the crime even under the name of the previous and eight times; the amount of penphone sold by the Defendant is significant; and all other sentencing factors, including the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, health conditions, environment, circumstances, and circumstances after the crime, are considered to be too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.