We reverse the judgment of the court below.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

8,277,400 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Of the judgment below of the court below of fact-finding, the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged in relation to the 2013 Highest 1418 case, although the defendant did not deliver a penphone to P, there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts.

Each sentence of unfair sentencing (the first instance judgment: imprisonment of two years, additional collection of ten thousand won, the second instance judgment: imprisonment of eight months, and additional collection of seven million won) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

Before determining on the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio, each appeal case against each judgment of the court below was consolidated. Each of the offenses committed by the defendant of each judgment of the court below constitutes concurrent offenses under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and shall be adjudicated concurrently in accordance with Article 38 of the Criminal Act and sentenced to a single punishment in the trial. In this regard, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.

However, even if there are such reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

The Defendant alleged that the first instance court made the same assertion as the grounds for appeal in this case, and the lower court rejected the above assertion in light of the following: (a) the Defendant and P made a false statement against the Defendant to take a retaliation against the Defendant after being challenged by the Defendant; (b) the Defendant and P made a false statement in accordance with the date and time and place of the mobile phone call from the Defendant at the time of the instant case; and (c) the Defendant made a false statement to the Defendant after being challenged by the Defendant from the Defendant; (d) the Defendant agreed upon and sent well after the Defendant’s settlement at the prosecutor’s office immediately after being proved by the P; (b) however, the Defendant stated that the Defendant provided the P with the Metepian.

In comparison with the above judgment of the court below, a thorough examination is conducted, and P is conducted with the previous statement at the trial court.