The judgment below

The guilty part and the guilty part of the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fence) in the lower order on February 201.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (1) The Prosecutor of the misunderstanding of legal principles (the assertion of abuse of the right to institute a public prosecution) was able to prosecute the Defendant with other cases regarding the purchase of the Defendant’s penphones and the facts charged in the instant case, but, after the judgment of the appellate court of the instant other case was rendered, the prosecution of the instant case constitutes abuse of the right to institute a public prosecution, since it infringes the Defendant’s right

(2) The Defendant did not purchase a penphone on January 10, 201 and January 14, 201.

B. The lower court’s judgment that acquitted the Defendant and E of this part of the facts charged on a different premise is erroneous, in light of the following: (a) the public prosecutor’s erroneous determination of facts (i) (as to the purchase of written phone on January 20, 2011 among the acquitted parts; (b) the provision of written phonephones on February 20, 201; (c) the provision of approximately 1.4g and medication of written phones on March 201; (d) the relationship with the Defendant and E; (e) the details of the instant information; and (e) the fact that the Defendant and E’s mobile phone calls correspond to the statement of E, even if all of the facts charged are found guilty, the lower court’s judgment that acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged on a different premise is unlawful.

(2) The lower court’s sentencing of an unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unjustifiable and unfair.

2. The court below rejected the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles in detail under the title "reasons for a crime" and "determination of abuse of right to prosecution" in the judgment of the court below, with the same argument as that of the defendant's allegation of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles. In comparison with the above judgment of the court below, the judgment of the court below is just and it is not erroneous and there is no error of law of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

3. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts

(a) Happopon on February 2011;