The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

80,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty on the part of the instant facts charged, on the ground that there is no evidence of crime on the ground that the part of the instant facts charged, which the Defendant led to the confession of the Defendant (hereinafter “culon”), sold the culon to F, constitutes a case where there is no evidence of crime on the ground that the F’s statement was not reliable.

However, in light of F's statement details, telephone conversation details between the Defendant and F, and the current status of recording and video-recording meetings, the F's statement that the Defendant purchased phiphones from the Defendant is credibility.

Ultimately, although all the facts charged of this case are sufficient to prove a crime, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the part of the facts charged of this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, is erroneous.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, probation, etc.) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant: (a) around 21:00 on May 2013, at around 21:00, sold 00,000 won from F in the vicinity of the E branch located in Busan Northern District; and (b) sold 0.5g of phiphones.

B. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that there is a lack of consistency in the statement to F’s investigative agency as seen in this part of the facts charged, and that there is a lack to recognize this part of the facts charged solely on the statement of telephone call between the Defendant and F and the statement of the present situation of recording and video conversations between the Defendant and F.

C. (1) It is true that the F’s statement is somewhat inconsistent as follows, as the lower court properly pointed out.

(1) "Isn't know about it."