The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

On August 15, 2013, the defendant is guilty of the fact that he was about to escape from the D Station on August 15, 2013, and there is no fact that he sold a philophone to him.

The punishment sentenced by the court below (10 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake, the defendant can fully recognize the fact that he/she sold phiphones to E as stated in the facts charged in the judgment below.

E consistently purchased a penphone from the Defendant in Busan at the case of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (Seoul District Court Decision 2013 2013 Ma6357)

was stated.

In addition, E was convicted of a narcotics crime including the criminal fact that he purchased phiphonephones from the Defendant.

Although the Defendant asserts that E made a false statement by taking advantage of money from E because he did not repay it to E, the Defendant and E did not have a strong friendship, and only came to know while the Defendant was visiting the Defendant’s line G, it is difficult to recognize that E, by taking the Defendant’s mind of religion, designated the Defendant as a phiphone seller.

Witness

F means that F will seek philophones from investigative agencies to the court of the court below.

On the following day, E gave 100,000 won in cash, and 0.1g of philophones had no knowledge of the Defendant at all, but E purchased philophones from a person who has a separate name called “M” in Busan.

I saw that it was in fact

Defendant’s separate statement is “M”.

Defendant

In addition, around 15:30 on August 15, 2013, E itself is recognized in the street in front of D.

Although there are not many types of philophones handled by the defendant to judge the unfair argument of sentencing.