The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below found the defendant guilty on this part of the facts charged, since there was no fact that the defendant sold the Mesacoin to E, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (one hundred months of imprisonment and four hundred thousand won of a surcharge) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The Defendant in this part of the facts charged is a person who is not entitled to handle the psychotropic drug clocks (i.e., a single philopon; hereinafter referred to as “philopon”).

At around 03:50 on May 9, 2012, the Defendant received 400,000 won from E in front of the gas station located in C, from E, from which he was paid a philopon, and 1 a disposable injection device containing 0.1g of philopon from that place to E.

Accordingly, the Defendant sold approximately 0.1g of philophones.

B. The court of the original judgment found guilty of this part of the facts charged in full view of all the evidence in the judgment of the original court.

C. (1) In determining the credibility of a statement made by a victim, etc. supporting the facts charged, the court of the relevant legal doctrine has assessed the credibility of the statement, taking into account all the circumstances that make it difficult to record in the witness examination protocol, such as the appearance and attitude of the witness who is making a statement in the open court after being sworn in the presence of a judge, and the penance of the statement, and the fact that the witness’s statement made in the witness examination protocol, such as a statement made in the open court after being sworn in the presence of a judge, are evaluated the credibility of the statement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do7917, Jan. 30, 2009). In a case where the statements made by the witness, including the victim, are replaced and consistent with the facts charged, it can be concluded that there is no credibility from an objective perspective.