The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

4,500,000 won shall be collected from the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As examined below, the lower court’s judgment convicting each of the facts charged of this case was erroneous and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.

1) On December 17, 2015, the sale of philophones and the receipt of philophones, and the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. following the sale of philophones on January 23, 2016, there exists a statement in D’s investigation agency as the only direct evidence that conforms to the facts charged in this part. D’s reversal of the above investigation agency’s statement at the court below, D’s reversal of the statement at the court below, and D’s habitually administered philophones for about 15 years prior to around 15 years, and even if the economic situation at the time of the instant case is not good, it is not understood that D purchased philophones from the Defendant at a level lower than the ordinary transaction price, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this part of the facts charged.

2) On January 2016, the Defendant violated the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. by the Handphone medication (flaon) in violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. by the Handon medication (flaon). Around January 2016, the Defendant: (a) knew that D had a phiphone on the coffee he had his own flaon; and (b) did not have a phiphone administered with his own phiphone; and (c) the statement made at D’s court below was consistent with this, the Defendant did not have any intention to phiphone medication.

3) On July 17, 2015, the only direct evidence that corresponds to this part of the facts charged lies in the I’s investigative agency and court of original instance, and the I made a statement in the I’s investigative agency and court of original instance, that the relationship with the Defendant was not good, that part of I’s statement is not consistent, and that I received a written phone from the Defendant.

In light of the fact that the time (17:00 to 18:00) and place (18:00) alleged to be asserted are contrary to the empirical rule, etc., I’s above statement cannot be recognized as credibility, and there is no other evidence to prove this part of the facts charged.