The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

10,000 won shall be collected from the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of the receipt of philophones, although the Defendant did not know E at the date, time, and place as stated in paragraph (1) of the facts charged, and did not receive philophones from E, is erroneous in the misapprehension of the facts.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The summary of the facts charged and the summary of the judgment of the court below in this part of the facts charged are as follows: “On May 3, 2017, at the entrance of D, located on the first floor of the C Building at C at Heunging City around May 3, 2017, the Defendant received a penphone in the way of receiving approximately 0.14 g of a philopon (hereinafter “philopon”).

The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged as evidence, such as the judgment on E and the copy of the investigation report (the monetary details analysis).

B. Article 312(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act applies not only to a case where an investigative agency other than a public prosecutor, other than the suspect, uses a protocol of interrogation of a suspect against the defendant as evidence of guilt, but also to a case where an investigative agency other than a public prosecutor, other than the suspect or accomplice-related investigation agency, adopts a protocol of interrogation of a suspect or a protocol of interrogation of a suspect against another defendant or suspect, which is co-offender-related with the defendant, as evidence of conviction against the defendant, as well as to a case where the protocol of interrogation of a suspect prepared by an investigative agency other than a public prosecutor, other than a public prosecutor, which is co-related with the defendant, is admissible if the defendant denies the contents of the protocol at the public trial date. As a result, Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which exceptionally recognizes admissibility, is a provision that recognizes admissibility of evidence.