The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty, and the summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly notified.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and improper sentencing);

A. In fact, when the Defendant was detained by F due to the fact that the Defendant initially sold phiphones to F, the Defendant had discussed the investigation situation of E and the issue of cost of appointing counsel at the time and place indicated in the instant facts charged, but did not sell 23 g phiphones to E.

E’s legal statement is not reliable because it has no memory about the process of crime, etc. or there is a difference between the statement and the investigation agency, and there is no objective evidence that corresponds to other facts charged.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged based on the E’s statement is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

B. Sentencing, even if the Defendant was found guilty, the lower court’s punishment (one year and four months of imprisonment, and three million won of additional collection) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case, despite that the Defendant is not a narcotics handler, around September 11, 2015, sold approximately 23 g of the Mesphere, a local mental medicine, to E, on the street room in C Hospital located in Busan Young-gu, Busan, to E, on September 11, 2015.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by comprehensively taking account of the following: (a) the witness E’s legal statement and the telephone conversations between the Defendant and E at the time of the instant case.

(c)

1) In a case where the issue is whether to trade narcotics, etc., in question, if the Defendant, who was identified as the seller, denies the receipt of narcotics, and there is no objective evidence, such as financial data to support this, in order to recognize him/her guilty only by the statement of the purchaser of narcotics, the statement of the purchaser of narcotics must be admissible as evidence, and there is credibility that may exclude a reasonable doubt.

When determining the credibility of the statement, not only the rationality, objective reasonableness, and consistency before and after the statement itself.