The judgment below

The penalty collection portion shall be reversed.

30,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

The additional collection charge shall be equivalent to the above additional collection charge.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the facts charged of this case

In relation to paragraph (1), the defendant and B purchased the Mesophopopon with a single-name clopon (hereinafter referred to as "phiopon") and divided the phiopon into two parts: Provided, That it is unreasonable to rate it as a crime of selling phiopon separate from the crime of selling phiopon.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and two months of imprisonment, additional collection of 503,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant had the same assertion as the grounds for appeal, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s above assertion by providing a detailed statement of the Defendant’s assertion and judgment.

In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, Article 1-B of the facts charged of this case is examined.

As stated in paragraph (1), the defendant can recognize the fact that he sold philophones to B, and it cannot be viewed as an act after vegetable death. On the same premise, Article 1-B of the facts charged of this case is the same.

There is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles in the judgment below which found guilty.

① The investigative agency consistently stated that the Defendant purchased phiphones from the Defendant, and the above statement in B contains very specific contents, such as the motive and circumstances leading the Defendant to purchase phiphones from the Defendant, the date and time, place of purchase, and the situation at the time of purchase. Moreover, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant and B were sent phiphones from the Defendant at the time of the instant case, consistent with the content of text messages between the Defendant and B.

[B 3 copies of the interrogation protocol (Evidence No. 2, No. 8, No. 11, No. 2, No. 8, No. 2, No. 87, No. 87, and two copies of the A's license pictures and letters (Evidence Records).