The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

Seized evidence 2 shall be confiscated.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, the period during which the Defendant received and possessed 0.4g of philopon from E on February 24, 2013 is merely three days and does not have any separate criminal intent as to the possession of the Defendant, and thus, the act of carrying philopon is indivisible relation with the act of giving and receiving it, and thus, the crime is not established separately.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. Unless it is judged that the possession of a philoon without disposing of the philoon received as to the assertion of misunderstanding the legal principles is in an indivisible relationship with the act of receiving it, or that the act of receiving it is merely an inevitable result which is accompanied by the act of receiving it, the act of holding it shall be deemed to be the crime of holding a philoon separately from the crime of receiving the philoon, unless it is judged that it is

(See Supreme Court Decisions 96Do2839 Decided February 28, 1997, and 95Do869 Decided July 28, 1995, etc.). According to the records of this case, the Defendant received one g of a phiphone from E on December 27, 2012 for the purpose of selling the phiphone from E, and stored it in a phiphone with the Defendant’s house in an inner chill, and sold it to H on January 6, 2013. However, even on February 24, 2013, the Defendant was arrested to the police officer on February 27, 2013 by providing E with and receiving 0.4 g of a phiphonephone from E, and then, it was recognized that the Defendant was arrested to the police officer on February 27, 2013.

As can be seen, the Defendant’s act of receiving philophones on February 24, 2013 and then keeping and possessing it with a police officer on or around the 27th of the same month in order to sell it to another person may be evaluated as the result of receipt and delivery as an indivisible consequence in light of the aforementioned legal principles.