The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. On January 1, 2018, the summary of the grounds for appeal (fact-finding) B was convicted of the Defendant on September 4, 2019 on the fact that the Defendant administered approximately 0.06g of philophonephones received from the Defendant around the new wall on January 1, 2018, and the said judgment was finalized on October 7, 2019, and B was consistently issued a written phone from the Defendant from the time when the police investigation was conducted to the original trial.

In addition, B has made a relatively consistent statement about the frequency and method of administering one's own behaviors and philophones before being delivered with philophones.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant not guilty on the ground that the statement B was not reliable.

2. The lower court determined that the credibility of B’s statement is weak in full view of the following: (a) B changed the contents of the statement at the time when the phone was delivered by the Defendant; (b) changed the contents of the statement on the day on which the crime was committed; (c) did not make clear answers as to whether the Defendant appeared as a witness on the day of the crime; (b) changed the number and method of administering the phone that was received from the Defendant; and (d) the statement that the Defendant was issued with the phone on November 7, 2017, and subsequently reversed B’s statement on the ground that the above statement was false; (b) found B’s statement in the phone on January 1, 2018; and (c) it was possible to recognize the fact that B used the phone around the morning on January 1, 2018, which was made by the Defendant on the day of the crime; and (c) the judgment was not sufficient enough to prove that B’s act of giving and receiving the phone from the Defendant; and (d) it is not sufficient to prove that B’s statement was made by the Defendant.