A. The Defendant was unaware of the fact that he sold the drug (hereinafter “the instant drug”).

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (the imprisonment of eight months, additional collection) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of mistake of facts and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court, namely, ① the Defendant was aware of the fact that the Defendant was aware of the fact that the composition of the Mesacule (hereinafter “Mesopon”) was included in drugs referred to as “Mesopon”, which was sent by the Defendant using Mesopon vessels in the lower court.

Recognizing the facts charged, there is no circumstance to deny the voluntary nature and credibility of the confession. 2) The Defendant sold an article to see “stimulation” or “stimulation” on a cell phone fluor, etc. even before committing the instant crime. However, in the instant case, the Defendant posted a letter to see the buyer that “motor vehicle fluoring” fluoring on a penphone, unlike this, shows the buyer’s penphone photograph, and sells the instant medicine. 3) The Defendant purchased the same “procluor” product from the Internet site at the prosecution, and sold it to P as the “P”, and the Defendant sold it to F in this case by deceiving F as the “cluorphone”.

However, considering the fact that the Defendant’s goods sold to P are not narcotics, etc. as a result of the appraisal, and the prosecutor took a non-prosecution disposition, while considering the fact that the instant medicine was detected as a result of the appraisal by the National Institute of Scientific Investigation and Investigation, and caused the instant prosecution, the Defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that the instant medicine was sold to F knowing that it was a phiphone, such as the instant facts charged, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion of mistake is groundless.

(b).