The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Of the lower judgment on July 31, 2017, the Defendant was convicted of this part of the facts charged, even though the Defendant received a request to request the Defendant to request the Defendant to request the Defendant to request the Handphones, and only returned to “G” for the purpose of receiving the request, as stated in the facts charged, and even though there was no fact that the Defendant received a handphone from “G” and received a handphone from “G” as indicated in the facts charged, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment, additional collection of KRW 3.3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the court below was just in holding that the Defendant was fully aware of the fact that the Defendant received KRW 2 million from C, as stated in the facts charged, and then sold phiphones by using 10 ghon from G, “G,” and selling phiphones to C, and thus, there were errors in the misapprehension of facts.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion against this cannot be justified.

① A confirmed the details of the call on the day of the instant case at an investigative agency, and made a concrete and consistent statement on the process in which the Defendant purchased chophones from the Defendant upon delivery of the chophones stated in this part of the facts charged from I. There seems to be no special circumstance to reject the credibility of the statement.

② Meanwhile, on July 31, 2017, the Defendant: (a) called “G” in the name of “G” in the middle of the E Station to purchase phiphonephones after having met C around July 31, 2017; (b) however, “G” is a person who knows both the Defendant and C.