The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

2,300,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant merely assisted S to trade philophones, but did not sell philophones, but is excessive differently from the fact of transfer of philophones as stated in the facts charged. B. The punishment that the lower court rendered by improper sentencing (two years and six months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of the assertion of mistake as to the assertion that the purchase and sale mediation is excessive, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, i.e., the Defendant’s delivery of a phiphone from S and sold part of the sales proceeds, but S stated that, at any time, the Defendant was unaware of how much he/she sold the phiphone, and in distinguishing between the seller’s “seller” and “person with prior knowledge of the sale”, it is important for whom the buyer was aware as the seller. However, the J purchasing the phiphone from the Defendant was aware of the Defendant as the seller, and it did not directly purchase the phiphone from S.

In light of the fact that “the Defendant stated to the purport,” etc., the Defendant sold philophones as stated in the judgment below.

It is reasonable to view it.

This part of the assertion of mistake is without merit.

2) In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined in the lower court and the trial court on the assertion that the amount of philophones is excessively written, the Defendant clearly stated the amount of philophones sold by himself in the investigative agency, namely, the amount of philophones sold by himself in the investigative agency, which is not different from the amount of philophones in the lower judgment, and the total amount of philophones sold by the Defendant and the total amount of philophones sold by himself to the Defendant are almost identical, the Defendant may fully recognize the fact that philophones sold the quantity of philophones as stated in the lower judgment.

This part of the assertion is without merit.

(b).