The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

20,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant (misunderstanding of the facts about the guilty portion of the lower judgment and misunderstanding of the sentencing) was erroneous, and the Defendant did not deliver a written phone to E as stated in the lower judgment.

2) The lower court’s punishment (two years of imprisonment, additional collection of KRW 100,00) is too unreasonable.

B. According to the prosecutor’s evidence (misunderstanding of the facts as to the acquittal portion of the lower court’s judgment), although the Defendant could recognize the fact that he administered a phiphone as recorded in the facts charged, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged solely on the basis

2. The summary of the facts charged in this part of the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts is that “the Defendant, even if not the narcotics handler, provided to E free of charge approximately 0.3g g of philopon in the vehicle of the E driving parked on the Busan Suwon-gu D on October 2, 2016.”

In light of the following facts and circumstances, E made a statement to the effect that it conforms to the above facts charged in the trial court, and in light of the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the trial court, E’s above statement can be acknowledged as credibility.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion of mistake is rejected.

① Around 22:00 on October 2, 2016, E became final and conclusive as guilty of facts constituting a crime, such as having received approximately 0.3g of philopon from the Defendant within his own car parked on the Busan Suwon-gu D Street, and received double medication.

② E has reversed 0.3g of the philophones received from the Defendant at an investigative agency (Evidence No. 129, 136 pages) and 100,000 won.

was issued without compensation.

The case was reversed (Evidence No. 136, 210 pages) and the case was remanded from “O road” to “D road surface” (Evidence No. 129, 143 pages). However, E attempts to set up the difference between “E” at the court of first instance where the Defendant is on board the Defendant at the frequency of his work.