The defendant is innocent.

1. Summary of the facts charged

A. On September 16, 2008, the Defendant transferred 2.5 million won to his own account from C, and then sent 10 g of 10 g of psychotropic drugs, which were psychotropic drugs sealed in plastic paper in the toilet box by means of DNA cargo, which were stored in the toilet box by means of plastic paper (hereinafter “loilphone”). On September 17, 2008, the Defendant sold loilphones, despite the fact that the Defendant was not a person handling narcotics, by allowing F to receive the said loilphone at the Seoul E Terminal, around 08:00 on September 17, 2008.

B. On October 14, 2008, around 14:00, the Defendant sold philophones, regardless of whether the Defendant was a person handling narcotics, within the number omitted car parked on the street around the Busan metropolitan GGGGGGGGGGGGGGG in Busan, the Defendant received KRW 500,000 from F, and sold philophones regardless of whether the Defendant was a person handling narcotics.

2. Determination:

A. On September 16, 2008, the Defendant received 2.5 million won from F upon the F’s request to rescue the philopon, but did not request F to rescue the philopon. However, on October 2008, the Defendant asserted that F did not have any fact of deceiving F in the vicinity of Busan Shipping Daegu G, Busan, and consistently denied the facts charged of this case from the investigative agency to this court.

B. As evidence that the Defendant sold phiphones to F twice, there are statements made in F and C investigative agencies and passbook transactions in which C remitted 2.5 million won to the Defendant.

However, the above evidence sent F’s statement in this Court, that is, the Defendant, around September 2008, 2.5 million won on a penphone, at the same time, did not send a penphone;

On October 2008, G made a false statement that purchased phiphones from G around 2008;

In addition, the defendant was unable to slickly in the circumstance that the defendant received the transfer of the purchase price of phiphones and did not send phiphones, and the defendant continued to seek 2.5 million won of the above purchase price of phiphones from C, and it was hard for him to do so;

Therefore, he is bound by the case of philopon.