The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the facts of the crime No. 1-f. of the judgment of the court below, the defendant did not possess approximately 0.3 g of phiphones in collusion with J on three short U.S. dollars.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendant (one year and two months of imprisonment, additional collection charge 389,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On October 4, 2015, the Defendant, in collusion with J, included approximately 0.3g of philopon in two single-use cell units located in the “I” office located in the “I” office of the Defendant’s sixth floor in the Ha Government-si, Ha Government-si, on October 4, 2015.

2) As to the instant case, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the health team, the lower court, and the first instance court, namely, (i) an accomplice J made a statement consistent with the Defendant’s assertion at the time at the prosecutor’s office, but immediately reversed the above statement, and (ii) consistently received money from a third party at the Defendant’s order from the time of the lower court to the time of the lower court’s trial.

The 3 part-time United States head kept in the office stated to the effect that the defendant possesses and manages the keys, and the phiphonephones discovered in the above part-time United States head stated to the effect that the defendant is the defendant.

The Defendant’s statement to the effect that he was given by the Defendant or the Defendant’s tag, and corresponds to the J’s statement. ③ On the other hand, the Defendant, while denying the suspicion that he either stated B or sold phiphones to B by the investigation agency, was in the court of original instance, and it is difficult to believe that his assertion is inconsistent with the Defendant’s statement due to the lack of consistency, such as the confession of the above crime. ④ The instant I Office was operated and managed by the Defendant, and the J, from September 2015, prior to the occurrence and management of the instant case, at the place where the Defendant was operated and managed.