The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant does not have administered philophones around 15:00 on February 1, 2020.

B. The punishment sentenced by the court below on the grounds that the sentence of unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment, two-months, confiscation, and collection KRW 200,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant’s confession statement that recognized all his/her own crime in the court cannot be easily rejected unless there is an explanation that it is possible to understand the circumstances leading up to the confession, and the Defendant’s confession in the investigative agency and the court of original instance differs from his/her court statement in the appellate court cannot be said to be doubtful of the probative value or credibility of such confession (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do2556, Apr. 29, 2010). Reinforcement evidence of the Defendant’s confession is sufficient if it is sufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant’s confession is true, not a processed one, even if the whole or essential part of the facts constituting the crime is not sufficient to the extent that it is recognizable that the confession of the Defendant is not a processed one, or that the circumstantial evidence is not an indirect evidence or corroborative evidence.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2017Do20247, Mar. 15, 2018). The Defendant led to a confession that he/she administered phiphones at an investigative agency and the court below’s court court on February 1, 2020. The Defendant did not have the ability to distinguish phiphones at the time of confession by an investigative agency.

The Defendant’s assertion that the investigative agency conducted a strong arrest and testimony solicitation does not have any evidence to acknowledge it, and administered PCs from the PC.

The circumstances that the defendant withdrawn cash at a bank immediately after the administration of philophones do not constitute a circumstance that could impeachment the credibility of the confession statement made by the defendant at the original court, and there is no fact or circumstance that could otherwise be impeachmented the credibility of the confession statement made by the defendant at the original court even after examining all of the records of this case.

Furthermore, there was a philoopon, which was found on February 1, 2020, contained a cloopon which was seized by the Defendant.