The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

The articles of incorporation 1, 2, 5 through 7, respectively.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On June 13, 2016, the Defendant: (a) did not purchase a penphone from G on June 13, 2016; and (b) from May 2016.

6. Until May 26, 2016, the lower court erred by misapprehending this part of the judgment, even though both philophones and other philophones that were administered five times by five times, were purchased from D on May 2016.

B. The sentence of the lower court (two years of imprisonment, confiscation, and collection KRW 2 million) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal by mistake of facts

A. On June 13, 2016, the summary of the facts charged concerning the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. by Sale of Handphones (flaps) is as follows: (a) around 23:00 on June 13, 2016, the Defendant purchased and sold 1.6 million won in cash to the Defendant using a single philopphone (flapsy 100,000,000 won in cash, from the subway stations located in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E around the subway stations; and (b) around 23:00 on June 13, 2016, the Defendant sold 1.6 million won in cash.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the confession statement and seized materials in the Defendant’s investigative agency and the court of the lower court as evidence. However, in light of the following circumstances, the evidence duly admitted and examined at the court below and the court of the lower court, namely, the Defendant reversed the previous confession statement when the Defendant was in the first instance court, and purchased two a single philopon from D on May 13, 2016, and did not purchase the same quantity of philopon from G on June 13, 2016, the lower court alleged that the witness G also made a statement consistent with the Defendant’s assertion in this court, and as a result of the investigation by the prosecution, there was no disposition of suspicion as to the suspected fact that G sold philopon to the Defendant as above. In so doing, it is difficult to believe the previous confession statement by the Defendant and there is no evidence to acknowledge this part of the facts charged, and there is no other evidence to prove the facts charged.

It is related to the administration and possession of philophones with G.