All appeals filed by prosecutors and defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the case of Defendant 1’s misunderstanding of facts) 2017 high group 27 high group, the money remitted to F under the name of Defendant F’s mother is due to a simple monetary transaction rather than a Metetop (one philop; hereinafter “philopon”), and the money deposited in the name of “AK and” AL” on the F’s transaction details is entirely irrelevant to the Defendant.

Nevertheless, the F has been in school with F

Based on K’s legal statement, account transaction details, etc., the Defendant purchased phiphones from F.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in finding facts.

B) In the case of the 2017 Highest 154 case, L is difficult to have a reliable statement as a person who had been informed of and detained as a drug offender, and L is not aware of the Defendant’s phone number, but the Defendant purchased and administered phiphonephones from L on the grounds of L’s legal statement, etc.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in finding facts.

2) The sentence of the lower court (an additional collection of KRW 2 years, 4850,00) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (as to the 2017 order order 737), the lower court determined that the Defendant was inadmissible unless the Defendant consented to the submission of a certified copy of the prosecutor’s interrogation protocol, a certified copy of the statement protocol, etc. regarding X in support of the facts charged. However, given that X’s statement is specific and consistent and consistent, the admissibility of evidence is recognized pursuant to Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act. In full view of the above X’s statement and the account transaction details between the Defendant and X, the lower court acknowledged the fact that the Defendant purchased and administered phiphones, such as this part of the facts charged.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to facts and admissibility of evidence.

2. Reasons for appeal by the defendant;