The judgment below

The penalty collection portion shall be reversed.

60,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

The remainder of the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine and by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the purchase, sale, or medication of phiphones.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and the evidence duly examined and adopted by this court, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit, since the Defendant’s purchase, sale, and medication of phiphones as indicated in the facts constituting the crime.

A. The J, the spouse of the Defendant, has consistently stated the fact that the Defendant sold and purchased phiphonephones and administered them in a specific and consistent manner as stated in its reasoning, and the description is sufficiently reliable as it is difficult to make a statement that it does not actually undergo due to the birth and birth of the description.

Although J has some differences from objective evidence about the date and time of partial crimes, it seems to be caused by natural confusion or distortion of memory due to the flow of time, and maintaining consistent statements about the sale and purchase of the ruling and the administration itself.

B. D stated in the court below that “a person has lent or borrowed money from one another with the Defendant,” and the J stated to the effect that in relation to the crime No. 2 of the judgment of the court below, “D was “a person who was suffering from a cell phone of the Defendant on the same day,” the Defendant was “a person who was suffering from a cell phone of the Defendant on the same day,” and that “the Defendant was at the time of sending the phone to D, and the Defendant was at the same time or below Seoul, and the Defendant got off the phone to D, and turned back the phone to B, and turned back the phone to B.” (No. 2: 616-617 of the investigation record), and around October 8, 2016, the Defendant and D sent the phone several times and the details of the Defendant’s statement at the time of sending the phone at the same time (the right to make the statement No. 1214, Dec. 16, 2016).