All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to Defendant 1’s misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of the legal principles, Defendant 1 found Defendant 1 guilty of the charge that the Defendant provided I free of charge a philopopon, on the grounds that: (a) at the time of the preparation of each prosecutor’s interrogation protocol and the written statement by the prosecutor’s office with respect to the facts constituting the crime, I did not have any support under particularly reliable circumstances; and (b) the lower court acknowledged the admissibility of evidence and found the Defendant guilty.

Therefore, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. As to the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on the sale of philophones and the sale of philophones around April 23, 2015, according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the above facts charged can be acknowledged. Although it is reasonable to adopt S’s statement at investigation agency as evidence by applying the exception of Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the lower court which acquitted the Defendant on the ground that it did not adopt it as evidence, it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles, the lower court also asserted the same purport, and the lower court proved that the first statement was made under particularly reliable circumstances at the time when the judgment was made, by explaining the detailed reasons in the part on “determination of the issues” in the part on the part on the “determination of the issue” in the past, and that the first statement was made under particularly reliable circumstances.

may be deemed to have been

The above argument was rejected.

When the judgment of the court below is examined closely with the evidence, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s determination on the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine is based on the Defendant’s defense counsel’s consent.