The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The instant indictment contains misunderstanding of legal principles and misunderstanding of facts. The Defendant’s same criminal records are three times, and the criminal records at the time of application for detention warrant against the Defendant include four times the criminal records of the Defendant’s same crime.

As above, since the prosecutor reads the criminal history of the defendant at the time of the application for detention warrant and infringes on the human rights and fundamental rights of the defendant, the judgment of the court below is unfair

2) The lower court’s judgment that recognized the above fact is unreasonable, even though the Defendant did not sell phiphones to E.

B. The punishment of the lower court (a year of imprisonment, an additional collection of KRW 19,100,00) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the record as to the assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles and misunderstanding of facts, the indictment of this case contains three times the criminal records of the defendant, and the attached Form attached to the warrant of detention is that the same criminal records of the defendant are recorded differently in four times.

However, the criminal facts of the judgment of the court below did not contain the criminal records of the defendant, and the criminal records of the defendant had influenced the recognition of the crime of this case.

shall not be deemed to exist.

There is no error of misunderstanding legal principles or misunderstanding of facts in the judgment of the court below.

2) Examining the contents stated in Paragraph 1 of the facts constituting the crime of the judgment of the court below, the defendant is a "F" subject to direct sale of phiphones, and E sells phiphones directly to E by requesting the purchase of phiphones.

is not an institution.

Defendant

In addition, the fact that philophones are sold to F at the date and place mentioned in the above paragraph is recognized.

There is no illegality of misconception of facts in the judgment of the court below.

B. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s unfair assertion of sentencing, and where the lower court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015).