The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the fact-finding or violation of Acts and subordinate statutes) did not have purchased Mestopphones (the so-called “stopphones” hereinafter) from E, but the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged by adopting the statements of E difficult to believe as evidence. Thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts contrary to the rules of evidence.

2. Determination E on the grounds for appeal consistently states that, when the first statement was made by the prosecutor's office, the Defendant purchased phiphones from Q " when the first statement was made, from the time when the third investigation was conducted to the time when the third examination was made as a witness in the original trial. This is supported by the Defendant and E's mobile phone conversations in the vicinity of the crime place at the time of each crime indicated in the facts charged, and that E and the Defendant maintained friendly relations for not less than 20 years, it is difficult for E to find out the reasons to make a statement unfavorable to the Defendant by the reversal of the statement as above, and further E can not be deemed to have reversed the statement in order to conceal Q's crime, since it can be recognized that Q and Q were led to the confession of the contents of Q's medication together with Q.

In full view of the fact that E was convicted of imprisonment with prison labor due to the fact that the E purchased phiphones from the Defendant, such as as written in the facts charged, the E’s statement has credibility.

In this regard, the witness M, who requested by the Defendant, stated in the court of the court below that he did not purchase a philopon from the Defendant while he talked with the scopon in the scopon in the front of the scopon, 4 times in 2012, the scopon, but E stated in the court of the court below that there was no scopon on the part of the Defendant that he did not purchase a philopon from the scopon in the scopon house around the above time, and that there was no scopon on the part of the Defendant.