The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

6,080,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the facts constituting the crime No. 1 as indicated in the judgment below, Defendant 1 did not purchase a penphone, and the money paid to D was lent business funds.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (an additional collection of KRW 1 year, 5,450,000) is too unreasonable.

B. According to the misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged on the ground that each statement protocol against K in the prosecutor’s preparation cannot be deemed as evidence because it is not recognized as the authenticity of its formation, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too uncomparably unreasonable.

2. Comprehensively taking account of evidence such as the defendant's statement D's assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, the defendant can be recognized that he purchased each penphone on the date and time stated in each of the items of criminal facts stated in the judgment below, and the defendant lent business funds to D as alleged by the defendant.

There is no evidence to view.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. Determination of the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine

A. On May 31, 201, the Defendant received the summary of the facts charged in this part of the charges from K, without compensation, a one-time injection equipment containing 0.7g philopon from K in the mutual influoric telecom room located in the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Busan, Seo-gu, Seoyang-gu. In order to receive a new wall from K.

B. According to the statement of K of the trial witness at the judgment party, the defendant can be found to have purchased 0.7 grams from K as stated in the above facts charged.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that acquitted this part of the facts charged on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

4. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is erroneous as to the non-guilty portion.