The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

4,430,500 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the facts charged in the case of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, among the facts charged in the case of 2014 high-class 318, constitute an offer to sell and purchase phiphones, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and thereby recognizing it as sale.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment, additional collection 4,430,500 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. The following facts acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below claiming the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles: (i) I asked the defendant to purchase the phiphone, namely, (ii) I asked the defendant to use the phiphone, (iii) I wanting to use the phiphone in return for money to I in the H market; (ii) I provided that "I want to use the phiphone in return for money to I; (iii) I purchased the phiphone from D with "I is waiting to use the phiphone; (iv) I again purchased the phiphone from D; and (v) purchased the phiphone again to I after about one hour; and (v) I did not know the fact that the defendant was not aware of the phiphone; and in light of this, it is reasonable to view that I was aware that I purchased the phiphone as the counter-party.

Therefore, we cannot accept the argument that the above assertion by another defendant, i.e., the seller of the above phiphone, is D, not the defendant, and the defendant is merely merely arranging the sale.

B. Although the Defendant had a criminal record of the same kind, he/she again commits the instant crime during the period of repeated crime, and the fact that the amount of the traded philopon is not significant is disadvantageous.

However, it is confirmed that the defendant reflects the error of the defendant, and that the defendant's important cooperation in investigation is confirmed in the trial, and the scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines is lower than the original judgment, from August to September of two years.