The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal;

A. There is no erroneous determination of the facts regarding the issuance of philophones to S, nor did the Defendant deliver a philophone to S in June 2019.

(2020 order 172). (b)

The sentence of unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment, confiscation, additional collection 4,736,00 won) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant’s delivery of philopon to Skman on June 2019 is recognized, and the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts is without merit.

1) At the time of the arrest of S, the investigative agency stated that S was issued a phiphone on the part of the Defendant, which was contained in the RB’s envelope, around October 29, 2019, around the day before the arrest of B to the court below. (2) S was arrested on the charge of causing bodily injury to S. around October 29, 2019. At the time of the arrest of S, the police confirmed S’s attitude at the time of the arrest of the phiphone’s act and confirmed S’s detection of the phiphone’s phiphone’s phiphone’s phiphone’s phiphone’s phiphone’s phiphone’s

S stated that S was issued a philophone by the Defendant with the view to the administration of philophones.

In full view of the circumstances such as the investigation process of S’s philophone medication and the relationship between the Defendant and S, there is no special circumstance to make a false statement that S received a philophone from another person while having received a philophone from the Defendant.

3) On or before June 10, 2019, around a week prior to the arrest of B, S and the Defendant received several contacts in the vicinity of the crime place, support the credibility of S’s statement (in case of the investigation record, page 85). S was detained on the charge of committing an offense, etc., for which the Defendant received a scopon from the Defendant and administered the scopon. The above facts in the criminal trial are the same.