All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) In other words, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or finding the Defendant not guilty of a violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. due to the sale of a self-philopon on November 17, 2015, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On November 17, 2015, the summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: (a) around November 17, 2015, the Defendant paid KRW 400,000 from D and stated in the lower judgment that “The Defendant shall pay KRW 400,000 to D,” but it cannot be said that the Defendant’s defense is infringed. Thus, the Defendant’s correction is ex officio.

By delivering approximately one gram of philophones, the philophone sold a philophone.

2) The court below held that the defendant denied the above facts charged from the investigative agency to the court below, and there is a statement from the prosecutor's office that is the main evidence for the above facts charged. D's above statements are as follows: (1) D's appearance at the court below as a witness and delivery of phiphonephones from the defendant only once on November 4, 2015 or November 17, 2015; and (2) D's statement from the prosecutor's office that "I purchased phiphones with the defendant's house located in the Gwanak-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Seoul Special Metropolitan City's Gwanak-gu's Seoul Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City's currency at the time of D's call, but it seems that D continued to have been in telephone conversations with the defendant and 15.15.15.15.3