The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant and his defense counsel 1) Statements of misunderstanding of facts by mistake of facts

The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the basis of D’s statement, although it was not consistent with the developments leading up to the sale and purchase, etc., was erroneous in misunderstanding of facts. 2) The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (two years and six months of imprisonment, and additional collection) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant by the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. On November 26, 2013, the Defendant: (a) around 17:00 on November 26, 2013, at Crens car parked on the road near the relative Dong-dong Residents Center; (b) 170,000 won in cash from D; and (c) 1.5g of psychotropic drugs, which are contained in six for a single-use injection machine, was dried up to D.

At around 17:00 on November 27, 2013, the Defendant: (a) 100,000 won in cash from D in Crens car parked on the road near F stations located in Jinju-si; (b) 1.5g of philopon, contained in D six for a disposable injection instrument, and (c) 0.05g of philopon, contained in D in one for a disposable injection instrument.

Accordingly, even if the defendant is not a person handling narcotics, he traded and provided a penphone to D.

B. Determination 1) The Defendant consistently met with D and D within Jinju City, but denies the facts charged in the instant case by asserting that there was no fact that he purchased and sold phiphones, and thus, the Defendant stated D’s investigative agency, the lower court and the first instance court’s each of the statements, G’s investigative agency, and the lower court’s court’s trial as evidence to support the facts charged in the instant case, and entered D and the Defendant’s monetary records. 2) First, as to the credibility of each of the above statements made in D, health belt, the lower court and the first instance court are legitimate.