The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding 1) In relation to Article 1(1)(i) of the lower judgment’s 2015 High Order 1128, the Defendant only sold and purchased a phiphone to F on March 3, 2014 and November 4 of the same year, and there was no fact that the Defendant sold and purchased a phiphone to F on July 4, 2014.

2) In relation to the main paragraphs (1), 2 (2) and 3 of the judgment below as to the lower court’s holding 2015 Goon 2536, the Defendant did not trade phiphones to K, as indicated in this part of the facts charged, nor did the Defendant sold phiphones to K without compensation, or administered phiphones with K.

3) The judgment of the court below which convicted each of the above facts charged is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s judgment 2015 J. 2015 J. 2015 J. 1128 rendered that the indictment for this part of the indictment is not accompanied by law because the date, time, and place of the facts charged are not specified.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the judgment.

(c)

The punishment sentenced by the court below (two years of imprisonment, additional collection 1,947,00 won) is too unreasonable.

2. In the lower court’s determination as to the assertion of mistake of fact, the Defendant asserted the same as the grounds for appeal in this part of the lower judgment, and the lower court, while clearly explaining the grounds for judgment in detail at “the grounds for conviction” at the bottom of “a summary of evidence”, sold or received the

The recognition was recognized.

In full view of the evidence adopted and examined by this court, such judgment of the court below is just and there is no illegality of misconception of facts alleged by the defendant.

This part of the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

3. In the lower court’s determination on the assertion of misunderstanding of the legal doctrine, the Defendant had the same assertion as the grounds for appeal in this part of the lower judgment, and the lower court, while sufficiently explaining the grounds for appeal in detail.