The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the case of a crime committed on November 1, 201, 1: (a) mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles; (b) the Defendant released from E was put to Busan as well as Mab; (c) E was directly delivered to F and G, and the Defendant did not purchase or deliver a penphone; and (d) the Defendant did not administer a penphone. Even if the Defendant purchased a penphone from E and delivered it to F and G, even if he was planned to directly deliver the purchased penphone, it is reasonable to deem F and G to have received a penphone directly from E, and therefore, there is no other crime of delivery in addition to the crime of purchase.

② In the case of the crime committed on January 10, 2012, the Defendant had been mediating the trade of phiphones with H upon G’s request, but the Defendant was not directly purchasing phiphones from H, and the Defendant did not administer phiphones.

(3) Nevertheless, the lower court found all of the charges of this case guilty, and thus, it erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination on the assertion of mistake of facts: (a) I am for the crime committed on November 1, 201, 201; (1) the statements made at the investigation agency or court of E, G, and F except the Defendant, were made repeatedly through several times from the investigation agency to the court of law; (b) E receives money from the Defendant and received money from another person; (c) G and F first entered the telephone; and (d) the Defendant divided two out of two of them into G and F, and divided into three of them into the telephones with the telephone brought to the outside; and (e) there is no conflict between statements; and (e) there is no conflict between statements.