The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The Defendant, as stated in paragraphs (1) and (2) of the facts constituting a crime, does not purchase each phiphone from “C” and sell it to “C”, but rather arranged the transaction of phiphones between “C” and “B.”

At the time of purchasing 30 ghon from C, the Defendant was more 2.1g from “C”, and the Defendant was seized in possession of 0.36g remaining 0.36g for five times. As such, the part corresponding to 0.36g should be deducted from the sale price of 7.5 million won.

The punishment sentenced by the court below of unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment, additional collection of 8.2 million won) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to the assertion that the Defendant was prosecuted as the charge of selling phiphones, etc., the Defendant’s “self-mail is not selling phiphones, but merely mediating the sale of phiphones.” In distinguishing between “sellers” and “sellers,” the seller is important. Therefore, if the buyer paid the purchase price to a person recognized as the seller, and received the delivery of phiphones, etc. from the buyer, then the person who recognized as the party to the transaction, such as phiphones, is deemed as the party to the transaction, regardless of who takes over the phiphones or takes over the purchase price of phiphones, should be deemed as the seller’s position. It is difficult to view such person as merely as the broker for the sale of phiphones, etc.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, (1) B, upon the request of the defendant to seek a phiphone, remitted the money corresponding to the purchase price of the phiphone to the account under the name of the defendant, and received a phiphone from the defendant, and (2) B consistently made a telephone conversation with the defendant at an investigative agency.