The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts (as to the part on the sale and purchase of Meptams), the Defendant had a fact that he had met C at the time and place indicated in this part of the facts charged, but there was no fact that he had paid 2.1 million won in cash and sold C about 13 g of Mepops (hereinafter “Mepopon”).

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of all the charges of this case including the facts charged that the Defendant traded phiphones to C, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (one year and eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court in determining the assertion of mistake of facts, key evidence corresponding to this part of the facts charged is C’s investigative agency and court’s statement.

However, the detailed part of the statement at C’s investigative agency and the court (i) whether the Defendant requested to rescue phiphones at the time of telephone conversations with the Defendant, or whether C requested to seek phiphones directly from the place of face-to-face with the Defendant, (ii) the place where C delivered the phiphones to the Defendant, and the place where C received the phiphones from the Defendant, is an area near the Handong apartment located in Busan Jin-gu, Busan, or the place where the phiphones were received from the Defendant, or a second floor office used as a gambling near the above Handong apartment (hereinafter “instant office”).

(3) It is somewhat inconsistent with the issue of whether out-of-the-counter stairs were installed, and (3) whether C delivered cash 2.1 million won to the Defendant using a philopon price, and then delivered the philopon at the place of delivery until the Defendant receives the philopon from the Defendant, or whether it was gambling at the gambling place. However, this is either due to the limit of memory or it is revealed that the crime of gambling was committed either by the limit of memory or by the same crime of gambling.