The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-finding (2017 Highest 888) The Defendant, although having met AM on April 28, 2016, did not provide AM free of charge.

Nevertheless, the lower court convicted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, which erred by misapprehending the fact and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (two years of imprisonment, additional collection of 1100,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination as to the assertion of misunderstanding the facts (2017 Godan 888) and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, (i) AM, at multiple investigative agencies, contacted the Defendant to seek about 10g of philopon in order to cooperate with the investigation, and (ii) around April 2016, after the AL hospital, sent approximately 0.5g of philopon, which is flop on a white flopon inside the flopon box from the Defendant, in order to provide cooperation with the investigation; (iii) at the time AW was placed in a toilet with a glass wall; and (iv) it was too much smaller than the amount agreed to cooperate with the investigation.

AW also made a statement consistent with the above AM’s statement from the investigative agency to the court of original trial (a defendant asserts that the testimony of the AW is inconsistent with the part of the AW’s testimony, and thus, it is impossible to believe the AW’s testimony, but the overall purport of the AW testimony is examined, there is no contradiction to reject the credibility of the AW testimony).

As a result of the analysis of L’s mobile phone call details, it was confirmed that the Defendant had made several calls with AM from April 27, 2016 to April 30 of the same month. This corresponds to the Defendant’s statement on the background leading up to the contact of the Defendant and the following circumstances; ④ On the other hand, the Defendant’s statement on the frequency and purpose of contact AM, and whether he/she went into the telecom at the time of the instant case is inconsistent and thus, the Defendant’s statement is inconsistent.