Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous.

Judgment

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court, the fact that the Defendant sold phiphones to G on May 29, 2013, as indicated in the facts constituting the crime at the time of original adjudication.

① At the time of the instant crime, G made a relatively consistent statement from the investigative agency to the court of first instance on the circumstances at the time of the purchase of phiphones from the Defendant.

② G specified the date of the instant crime based on the monetary content with the Defendant. According to the phone call content (Investigation Records No. 158 through 160, 164, and 165) between the Defendant and G, G appears to have been done before the F party room, which is the place of the instant crime, around that time, as G’s statement.

③ The Defendant asserts that G’s location at the time of the instant crime does not coincide with the above statement by starting from the office located in the Incheon Southern-gu N at the prosecutor’s office and the court below’s decision, and that G’s location at the time of the instant crime does not coincide with the above statement.

However, according to the G’s monetary content, the entire conduct of G is not revealed. In light of the fact that the location of G’s station at the time of the instant crime was within a distance of about 1 km from the F Party, the place of the instant crime, the F Party’s station at the time of the instant crime, there is a minor disagreement claimed by the Defendant.

Even if G's each of the above statements is considered not to be sufficient to reject the credibility of G's statement.

③ The H’s prosecutor’s office at night around the day of the instant crime.