The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than ten months.

2,60,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court, on November 23, 2016, sentenced the Defendant to two years of imprisonment due to the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (psychotropic Affairs) committed at a time similar to the date and time of the instant crime at Seoul Southern District Court (hereinafter “Seoul Southern District Court”), and became final and conclusive on September 8, 2017.

However, in light of the progress of the investigation, etc. at the time, the prosecutor did not prosecute each of the crimes of this case in order to put the defendant at a disadvantage despite having been able to prosecute each of the crimes of this case with each of the above finalized judgments.

The exercise of prosecutor's right to prosecute is an abuse of prosecutor's right to prosecute excessively unfavorable to the defendant.

Therefore, the indictment of this case is null and void because the procedure violates the provisions of law or is extremely unfair.

B. misunderstanding of facts1) The Defendant merely refused to hear the horses from G to support the purchase and sale of phiphones and did not arrange the purchase and sale of phiphones. G’s statement consistent with this part of the facts charged is not reliable in light of G’s frequent reversal of the G’s statement and personal history. Therefore, the lower court’s judgment convicting of this part of the facts charged on the ground of G’s statement without credibility was erroneous and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding of the facts. 2) On January 201, 2016 and February 2016, 2016, there was no fact that the Defendant provided H two times in the Defendant’s residence, but there was no fact that h was provided with phiphones.

G and H’s statements that correspond to this part of the facts charged are not reliable in light of the non-contestability of the statement, the purpose of avoiding their responsibilities, etc.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that found this part of the facts charged guilty based on the testimony of G and H without credibility is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3 The Defendant has provided K with philophones.