The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

10,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that there was no evidence supporting the purchase of phiphones among the facts charged in the instant case. However, there is evidence supporting the Defendant’s medication using phiphones purchased and relevant appraisal results, and thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too uneased and unfair.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination of the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the legal principles

A. On January 30, 2017, the Defendant purchased phiphonephones by only 100,000 won and 0.1g of phiphonephones by purchasing the name fluor (E) boxes (one name fluor) with a flat face in the D Station of Busan subway No. 1, the subway No. 1, but 10,000 won and 0.0g of phiphones.

B. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that the Defendant’s statement at the investigative agency and this court was flexible and there is no evidence to reinforce the confession of the Defendant, on the grounds that the substantive concurrent crimes are crimes, and there is no evidence to prove the confession of each criminal fact (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10937, Feb. 14, 2008).

(c)

The evidence of the confession made in the deliberation of the party is sufficient if it is sufficient to acknowledge that the confession of the defendant is not processed, even if the whole or essential part of the facts constituting the crime is not recognized, and it is sufficient to prove that the confession of the defendant is true. Moreover, indirect or circumstantial evidence, which is not direct evidence, may also serve as evidence for reinforcement. In addition, if the confession and reinforcement evidence are inconsistent with each other and it is possible to prove the facts of the crime as a whole, it is sufficient to prove the evidence of guilt (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do11272, Dec. 23, 2010). The lower court and the trial of the party are duly adopted and examined by the evidence.