The judgment below

The penalty collection portion shall be reversed.

5,703,00 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

The remainder of the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts, even though the person who jointly purchased and administered U and phiphones under paragraph (17) of the crime of misunderstanding of facts in the judgment of the court below and the person who sold phiphones to the person under paragraph (19) of the

B. In the case of paragraphs 15, 16, and 18 of the facts constituting an offense of unfair sentencing as stated in the judgment of the court below, the punishment imposed by the court below (three years of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable, as the circumstances of the facts charged are exaggerated compared to the degree of actual participation by the defendant.

2. Determination

A. (1) The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined at the court below and the court below's decision on the assertion of mistake of facts as stated in the judgment of the court below. In other words, the defendant was issued by U from U to a prosecutor's office a penphone, and stated that U was paid money in return, and it conforms to the detailed circumstances such as the type of the vehicle on which U was posted at the time of the above statement and U's prosecutor's statement, the type of the vehicle on which U was posted, and the place of delivery. At the time of U's purchase of a penphone, U conspired to sell this part of the facts charged, and U conspired to sell this part of the facts charged, and trade of the penphone by the above public offering. In light of the fact that the defendant recognized this part of the facts charged in the judgment of the court below, the defendant was issued a penphone from U to 1 on September 2012 and sold it.

I would like to say.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

(2) As to the crime No. 17 of the judgment of the court below, this part of the facts charged is that the defendant administered approximately 0.15g of oponon to his arms in a way of injecting them, and as alleged by the defendant, it is against the circumstance that the defendant possessed the oponon which was administered.