All appeals by the prosecutor and the defendant are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor (two years of imprisonment) is too unhued and unfair.

B. Defendant 1) The Defendant did not sell a philophone to D, did not deliver a philophone to E, and the detection of a philophones in the Defendant’s urine was limited to the Defendant’s philograms administered a philophones between the Defendant and the Defendant’s knowledge by mixing the philophones with the drinking. Therefore, the lower court’s judgment convicting each of the facts charged in the instant case was erroneous and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The sentence of unfair sentencing sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the court below's legitimately adopted and examined evidence on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts, namely, ① E and D appeared as a witness in the court of the court below and testified consistent with the facts charged that the defendant sold and delivered the penphones. Although their legal statements are different in detail from those of the investigation agency, considering that there are many kinds of penphones transaction between them and the defendant, such circumstance alone cannot be said to lack credibility. ② The defendant was present at the investigation agency only after arranging the cellphones despite being aware of the fact that the arrest warrant was issued due to the suspicion of selling the penphones to D, ③ the defendant made a false statement, ③ the issue related to the purchase of cellphones, and the defendant's office phone and E are delivered from S, not from the defendant's office phone, and the defendant's office phone and E are mixed with the phone in drinking, and there is no evidence to support the defendant's lawsuit by mixing them with the defendant's office.