The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

(a) through H, a so-called misunderstanding investigation agency (a person who informs an investigation agency of drug offenders and receives money from other drug offenders bound by these achievements) caused the Defendant to commit a crime of receiving and possessing phiphonephones.

This is illegal as it constitutes a naval investigation, and the above part of prosecution based on a naval investigation is null and void in violation of the provisions of the law.

B. The punishment of the lower court is too heavy (one year of imprisonment).

2. Determination

A. The Defendant asserted that the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine, as otherwise alleged in this part.

The lower court determined that the Defendant’s assertion was rejected and the criminal facts of the instant case were not the crime due to illegal naval investigation by providing a detailed statement of the judgment on the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel.

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court’s judgment is justifiable.

B. The lower court’s determination of the unfair assertion of sentencing exceeded the reasonable bounds of its discretion, in full view of all the relevant arguments and the conditions of sentencing indicated in the records, including the favorable circumstances (including the circumstances to be considered in the course of the commission of the crime, the Defendant’s voice response to the administration of philophones, etc.) and unfavorable circumstances (such as criminal records and repeated crimes, etc.), including the Defendant’s health and character character and intelligent environment including age, motive means of the crime, consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime.

There is no circumstance that the assessment or maintenance of it is deemed unfair (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Therefore, the lower court’s sentencing is appropriate, and the Defendant’s above assertion is also groundless.

3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is without merit.