The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

A sum of KRW 100,00 shall be collected from the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, as indicated in each of the facts charged in the instant case, did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine and by misapprehending the legal doctrine, either free of charge either 0.1g of the psychotropic drug clocks (hereinafter “clickphones”) or arrange the trade of clocks between E and B, a clickphone sales book.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty in all of the charges of this case is erroneous in misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s imprisonment (two years and two months of imprisonment and additional collection) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. As to the case No. 2019 high-class 4555, a judgment 1) ex officio on the admissibility of each protocol of suspect examination prepared by a judicial police officer against B and each protocol of witness prepared by a judicial police officer against B, prior to the judgment of the defendant as to the misapprehension of facts in this part of the charges, prior to the judgment of the defendant as to this part of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor as to this part of the charges, the admissibility of each protocol of suspect examination prepared by a judicial police officer against B and each protocol of witness prepared by a judicial police officer against B cannot be admitted as evidence as follows.

(1) Article 312(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that a copy of each protocol of interrogation prepared by a judicial police officer against B shall not only be admitted as evidence of guilt against the defendant prepared by investigation agency other than the prosecutor, but also a case where an investigation agency other than the prosecutor adopts the protocol of interrogation of the defendant or the suspect who is co-offenders with the defendant as evidence of guilt against the defendant. The protocol of interrogation prepared by investigation agency other than the prosecutor for the other suspect who is co-offenders