All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the contents of the K dialogue between the Defendant and E and the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts, and the philophone photographs, etc., the Defendant and E purchased and sold the Metetop phone (hereinafter “philophone”) by a typical method, and the Defendant’s mephone ingredients were detected from the Defendant’s hair.

After the date on which the defendant was administered with the charge as stated in the facts charged, and the parts of the defendant's wife stated in E are different from the actual ones of the defendant.

The defendant himself has made a statement that he has prepared to dyphophones in order to dyphophones.

Considering the above circumstances, it is difficult to believe that the Defendant and E’s statement to the effect that the Defendant is only correct on the upper part of the penphone for treatment.

Therefore, even according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, even if it is sufficient to recognize the crime of each phiphone medication as stated in the facts charged, the judgment of the court below which judged otherwise is erroneous by misapprehending the rules of evidence.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (eight months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, observation of protection, additional collection KRW 450,00) is too uneasy and unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court’s determination on the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of the facts reveals the fact that a training reaction has occurred in the Defendant’s identification test on the Defendant’s hair 100 marcule and marcule as to the Defendant’s hair, according to the narcotics appraisal report submitted by the prosecutor. However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge the facts charged that the Defendant administered a honcule, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Accordingly, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged.

The Defendant on July 9, 2016.