The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the F’s statement and monetary statement of the reasons for appeal, it is recognized that the Defendant sold a merpte (hereinafter “copon”) to F, as stated in the facts charged, about 5 g of the merpte (hereinafter “copon”).

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case and the lower court’s judgment: (a) “Notwithstanding the fact that the Defendant is not a narcotics handler, the Defendant, standing on the street “D store” located in Jung-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Jung-gu, Incheon, around August 18, 2017, received KRW 90,000 from F within the Erocketing vehicle operated by the Defendant and sold approximately 5 g of phiphonephones and traded phiphones.

As the F’s statement to the court and the investigative agency, which corresponds to the facts charged in the instant case, is not consistent with the date and place of writingphones purchased, the F made the first statement to the investigative agency to the effect that the first statement was due to obsting and the subsequent memory became clear, but it was clear that the date and time of the statement and the place had expired with the time of memory.

It is difficult to see that there is no belief in light of the court’s attitude of testimony, etc., and the remaining evidence duly adopted and examined in this case alone are insufficient to recognize the facts charged of this case, and thus, acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case by the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

B. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s duly admitted and investigated evidence, namely, F’s statement is not consistent with the key part of the process and developments leading up to the purchase of philophones, and is gradually terminated, taking into account the time interval between “ August 18, 2017” and “ August 21, 2017,” which was the date when the Defendant purchased philophones from the investigative agency, and the first statement made by the investigative agency.