All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the prosecutor 1) a mistake of facts (not guilty part) in the investigation agency D’s statement, even though the Defendant could acknowledge the fact that he received KRW 1 million from D on April 23, 2018 and sold approximately 3g philopon, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on this part of the facts charged, and thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles. 2) The lower court’s imprisonment with labor (one year and two months) is too uneasible and unfair.

B. Defendant 1’s statement of erroneous determination of facts (the fact of selling philophones among the part of the crime) is not reliable, and the lower court found Defendant 1 guilty of the sale of philophones on April 14, 2018 and May 7, 2018 on the basis of this, and thus, erred by misapprehending the legal principles. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is so unreasonable that it is too unreasonable.

2. Determination of misconception of facts by the defendant and prosecutor

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserted the same assertion at the lower court, and the lower court rejected it in detail.

In full view of the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, we affirm the judgment of the court below.

In particular, according to the following: ① a consistent and obvious statement from D’s investigative agency to the court below’s trial (the testimony of the witness I of the original trial is insufficient as a ground for impeachment of credibility of D’s statement because it is difficult to believe it as it is in light of the relationship between I and the defendant, I’s personal history, and I’s motive of testimony, etc.); ② C’s monetary records and the data verifying the location of the sending station; ③ D’s monetary call transactions; ④ details of D’s bank call transactions; ④ the circumstance and relationship between D and Defendant’s call and the situation before and after the commission of the crime, etc.,

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

B. Regarding the prosecutor’s assertion of this part of the facts charged, the facts that the Defendant and D had met at the time, and D’s transfer to the Defendant.