The judgment below

The penalty collection portion shall be reversed.

2,750,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

The above additional collection charge.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the facts constituting the crime No. 1-D in the judgment of the court below, the Defendant received a philopon from R and delivered it to F, which constitutes an arrangement that does not sell philopon.

B. The sentence of the lower court (a year of imprisonment, confiscation, additional collection of KRW 2.8 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment of the court below on the additional collection

A. The lower court rendered a judgment that held that the Defendant collected the value of the penphone that the Defendant arranged to sell each other and the value of the penphone administered by the Defendant, considering the sum total of KRW 2.8 million.

B. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant arranged to trade 600,000 phiphones from January 28, 2015, and arranged to trade phiphones for KRW 900,000 on February 24, 2015, and arranged to trade phiphones for KRW 600,000 on March 5, 2015, sold phiphones for KRW 2.50,000 among August 2015 (see criminal facts) and from February 2, 2015 to November 2015, it can be recognized that the Defendant administered phiphones for KRW 2.50,00 (see criminal facts). The price of each phiphones for KRW 100,000,00,000.

Therefore, the money to be collected from the Defendant is KRW 2,750,000 [ KRW 600,000 won KRW 600,00 won KRW 600,00 won x 4,000 won]. The lower judgment that said money is KRW 2,80,000 ( KRW 100,000 x 100 won) was calculated as KRW 90,000,00 in the amount of the additional collection on the penphone, arranged on March 5, 2015, and omitted the calculation of the amount of the additional collection on the penphone sold to patrolmen on August 2015, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court recognized the fact that RF sells phiphones to F and the Defendant does not arrange for the sale of phiphones to F.