All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 8,000,000.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts (as to the judgment of the court of second instance), the Defendant informed K of the contact details of the J, but there was no fact that the J and K have arranged to sell and purchase the Melacule (hereinafter “philopon”).

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of judgment.

B. The punishment (2 million won of fine) imposed by the court of first instance (as to the judgment of the court of first instance) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, each of the appeals cases was deliberated concurrently in the trial by the defendant, as he filed each appeal against the judgment below. As long as each of the criminal facts stated by the judgment of the court below is in a concurrent relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, it shall be decided at the same time and sentenced to a single punishment. In this regard, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more.

However, the defendant's second judgment's argument of mistake of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the above reasons for reversal of facts, and this is examined below.

B. On the ground of appeal, the lower court’s second instance judgment and the first instance court’s duly adopted and investigated the following circumstances, namely, ① the Defendant stated to the effect that “K was not aware of the fact-finding number, but there was no fact mediating the trade of phiphones between the two,” such as the fact-finding, but, at the time of the first investigation by the police, the Defendant received the request from the J to the lower court for repeatedly claiming phiphones from the police’s second investigation to the lower court, and was aware of the fact that the Defendant did not refuse to make phiphones, but, at the same time, notified K of the mobile phone numbers of J.

For this reason, it is false when the police does not refuse to go to prison.