All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (1) misunderstanding of the legal principle (as to the part concerning the crime No. 1 in the market), this part of the facts charged did not appear at all due to the lack of time, place, etc.

(2) There is no fact that the Defendant, as stated in this part of the facts charged, has arranged to trade philophones, (the first part of the crime in misunderstanding of facts).

(3) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (as to the first offense of unfair sentencing: imprisonment with prison labor for 8 months, and as to the second offense of ruling: imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year and additional collection of 1.9 million won) is too unreasonable.

B. In full view of the evidence by the prosecutor (1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (as to the portion of acquittal in the market), the Defendant is fully aware of the fact that the Defendant received approximately 0.05 g of philopon from the J on the sexually influence in November 2014.

(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the entry of the facts charged in the indictment must specify the facts by specifying the date, time, place, and method of the crime (Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act). The purport of the law requiring the specification of the facts charged is to facilitate the Defendant’s right of defense. As such, it is sufficient that the facts charged are stated to the extent that the facts constituting the crime are distinguishable from other facts by comprehensively taking account of these elements, and even if the date, time, place, method, etc. of the crime are not specified in the indictment, it does not go against the purport of the law allowing the specification of the facts charged, in light of the nature of the crime charged, and if it is inevitable to indicate the general name in light of the nature of the

(2) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the facts charged are sufficiently consistent with this Opinion. (3) In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the evidence. (4) In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the basis of the evidence duly adopted and examined.