The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

As to the defendant, 1.9 million won shall be additionally collected.

3.2

1. The Defendant is the “G” selling Meteptoptopules (one philopopon; hereinafter referred to as “philopon”) after communicating D with H’s mobile phone of the gist of the grounds for appeal.

However, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the charged facts of this case is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. On April 23, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Narcotics Control Act at the Gwangju District Court on one year and six months, and completed the execution of the sentence at the previous Jeju Prison on February 30, 2016. On April 14, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for perjury at the Gwangju District Court for ten months and the judgment became final and conclusive on November 23, 2017.

Defendant is not a narcotics handler.

On October 20, 2016, around 17:45, the Defendant parked on the road side in front of the branch office of the office located in the Daegu Northern-gu Office, Daegu Northern-gu, Daegu Northern-gu, in the vehicle operated by the Defendant, 2 white-phones containing approximately 5.9g of philophones, a local mental medicine, and sold 1.9 million won from D and 1.9 million won of philophones.

B. The lower court determined that D purchased phiphones from F first.

The defendant purchased philophones from the defendant after the statement was reversed.

The Defendant stated that there was no philophones purchased from the Defendant, and the final judgment on D also purchased philophones from “persons without a name”.

In full view of the records, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was deemed insufficient to recognize the facts charged of this case and sentenced not guilty.

(c)

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged in accordance with the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the prosecutor’s assertion is reasonable, since the defendant, who has a separate name of “G” in H’s cell phone conversationsd with H, has sold phiphones to D.

1. D. D.