The judgment below

The remainder of the forfeiture and collection, excluding the forfeiture and collection, shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of two years and three months.

1. The defendant asserts that the judgment of the court below erred by misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles as follows. A.

The arrest and detention against the defendant was illegal because the arrest warrant against the defendant is not the original, but the defendant was arrested without notifying the reason, and the examination of the quality of the warrant should be conducted within 48 hours after the arrest, or 3 days after the arrest.

B. The Defendant did not sell Mestopphones (hereinafter “Handphones”) to D, and on June 8, 2014, the Defendant did not reside in Incheon Bupyeong-gu because he did not reside therein.

C. The Defendant used a medicine that did not violate the law and did not have any philophones administered, and there was also a reduction in the result of the examination of the urine simplified reagents, so the Defendant should interpret it as a voice response, but the lower court, which interpreted it as a voice response, has erred in the misunderstanding of facts.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The lower court deemed that the police officers suggested arrest warrant at the time of arrest on the grounds of the following facts, circumstances, statutory interpretation, etc., and notified the warrant of arrest, and that the arrest and detention of the Defendant was lawful because there was no problem in the procedure for issuing the warrant of arrest.

1) On February 2, 2016, the Gwangju District Court issued a warrant of arrest to the defendant on February 2, 2016 on the charge of the sale of phiphones. Accordingly, on February 4, 2016, four police officers, such as J police stations, were arrested the defendant to Gamoto in Incheon where the defendant was the defendant on February 4, 2016. (ii) K, L, and M, a police officer, who was at the site at the time of the arrest of the defendant, presented a warrant of arrest at the court below to the same effect that the defendant was arrested at the court below, and issued a warrant of arrest.