The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Facts constituting the crime of this case 1-2

B. In relation to paragraph (1), the Defendant did not sell and sell the click phone (one clickphone; hereinafter “philopon”) to F, but did not put the clopon into the clopon to the clopon F upon request from F. However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of all the charges of this case.

B. The punishment of the lower court (one year and two months of imprisonment, confiscation, and collection) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Judgment as to the assertion of mistake of facts 1) Facts of the instant case

B. On January 25, 2017, the Defendant: (a) delivered KRW 350,00 from F on January 25, 2017 to sell and purchase approximately 0.21g of philophones purchased from sexually defective E. to F.

2) The lower court’s judgment, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, held that KRW 3.50,000, which the Defendant received from F from F, is the consideration that the Defendant received in selling the phiphones again to F, and that the Defendant’s act constitutes “trade” under Article 4(1)1 of the Narcotics Control Act.

The decision was determined.

3) If the Defendant used an opportunity to trade philophones and received 3.50,00 won in cash from F, the Defendant’s acquisition of philophones from another seller (E) is de facto, and even if F bears the entire purchase price of philophones, it is reasonable to evaluate the Defendant’s act of providing philophones by sale.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and even if considering all the circumstances asserted by the defendant, there is an error of mistake of facts in the judgment below.

We cannot accept this part of the defendant's assertion.

B. The conditions of sentencing do not change compared to the first instance court’s determination on the unfair argument of sentencing, and the first instance sentencing is the reasonable scope of discretion.