A. The Defendant asserting the misunderstanding of facts was requested by the “I” in the name of the ship after the ship of the ship following the ship of the ship, and purchased the philophone from H around January 18, 2015 at KRW 300,000,000 that I purchased from H around January 18, 2015. However, there was no fact that the philophone was administered together with I after the post.

The defendant led to the confession of the above medication from the investigation to the court below, but the confession is false.

There is no evidence supporting the administration of philophones except the confession of the defendant.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the above facts charged on the sole basis of the confession of the defendant who is unclear without any evidence of reinforcement is erroneous.

B. On January 18, 2015, the Defendant’s wrongful assertion of sentencing reflects the depth of the charges charged other than the fact that he/she administered a phiphone.

The defendant does not commit a second offense.

The defendant contributed significantly to the arrest of H and J by actively cooperating with the investigation.

The Defendant was sentenced to the instant punishment and thus, is highly likely to serve for a long time due to the invalidation of the previous suspended sentence.

In full view of these circumstances, the punishment sentenced by the court below (4 months of imprisonment, 6 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of fact 1) The Defendant’s confession in the court of original instance is doubtful solely on the grounds that the confession in the court of appeal differs from the legal statement in the court of appeal.

In determining the credibility of a confession, it is not possible to judge whether the contents of the confession themselves are objectively rational, what is the motive or reason of the confession, and what is the reason why the confession led to the confession, and there is a reasonable doubt in the motive or process of the confession under Article 309 of the Criminal Procedure Act, or in the motive or process of the confession.