The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is consistent with the statements made by the informant E, the main part of the statements made by the informant E cannot be seen as having a big difference in light of the incomplete memory of memory. Since the statements made by E are consistent with the results of inquiry into the monetary details, there is no reason to reject the statements made by the informant E.

In addition, in full view of the fact that F has made a concrete statement on the purchase of the Defendant’s phiphones, and that the Defendant intentionally escaped to conceal the crime, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case, but the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and thereby pronounced the Defendant not guilty.

2. Determination

A. On December 21, 2007, the Defendant was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. at the Incheon District Court (hereinafter “Seoul District Court”) and completed the execution of the sentence at the Incheon Detention Center on July 8, 2008, and is not a person handling narcotics.

Around September 15, 2008, the Defendant purchased a one-time injection device with approximately 0.7g 0,000 clocks, which is a psychotropic drug, from a psychotropic drug, to E at a 700,000 won, and from a psychotropic drug, the Defendant purchased a penphone with a single-time injection device with approximately 0.7g psychotropic drugs.

B. Determination 1) The lower court determined that the core evidence in the instant case contains witness E, F’s statement in the court and the investigative agency, and the statement between the Defendant and E on the grounds that the facts charged in the instant case constitute a case where there is no proof of criminal facts for the following reasons, first, acquitted the Defendant pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. A) First, the statements in E’s investigative agency and the court of the lower court are not consistent on the date and place of the crime, and in light of the position “E, September 15, 2008, which is confirmed by the monetary content inquiry council,” in light of the position “E” as of September 15, 2008, E entered the Defendant and the mother on the same day.