All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

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

30,000 won from the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The penalty sentenced by the first instance court (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months and 100,000 won) is too unreasonable.

B. The Defendant of the second lower judgment (a factual error) did not have any fact that the Defendant purchased or attempted to purchase phiphones from D.

The direct evidence related to this part of the facts charged is only the statement of D's investigative agency, and D's above statements are contradictory or unreasonable, and there is no credibility because they are inconsistent with the situation before and after.

2. Before determining the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, the judgment of the court below was rendered, and the Defendant filed an appeal against all of the judgment below, and the court decided to jointly examine each of the appeal cases.

Each of the offenses found guilty in the lower judgment is in the relation of concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and one sentence shall be imposed within the scope of a limited term of punishment imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. As such, the lower judgment cannot be maintained as it is.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts against the second judgment is still subject to the judgment of this court, so it will be judged in the following paragraph 3.

3. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. Considering the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating credibility according to the spirit of substantial direct cross-examination, it is obvious that the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance was clearly erroneous in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined in the first instance court, or that the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance court was clearly erroneous in light of the results of the first instance court’s examination and the evidence duly examined in the first instance court