The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is consistent with the purport that C sold the Defendant’s dryphone to F and delivered it to F with KRW 900,000,000, and that F purchased the Defendant’s dryphone.

Therefore, even though the defendant conspired with C to sell phiphones to F or sell phiphones to C at least, the court below found the defendant not guilty of the facts charged in this case, which erred by misapprehending the legal principles, or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination as to the sale of philophones

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is not a narcotics handler.

On January 31, 2017, the Defendant received a proposal from C for the sale of Mesophical drugs (one philopopon; hereinafter “philopon”), and consented to the proposal, and around 22:00 on the same day, the Defendant received KRW 90,00 in cash from C, and received approximately KRW 50,00 in a philopon from F, and issued C the said philopon to F in front of the said Melopon.

Accordingly, the Defendant conspired with C to sell philophones.

B. The lower court determined that: (a) the statement made by C and F is not consistent with the statement made by C and the Defendant was informed to the investigation agency of C regarding the administration and transaction of phiphones from the time when C and C found themselves; and (b) it is difficult to regard it as an ordinary act of a person who sells phiphones; and (c) at the beginning, C had any other merchant line than the Defendant.

When the sale of philophones to CF was discovered, the Defendant was identified as the upper line of the supply of philophones. In full view of the following: (a) it is difficult to believe C’s statement that the Defendant supplied philophones to himself; and (b) it is difficult to exclude anyone other than the Defendant from the possibility of supplying 5g of philophones to C.