The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

Of the facts charged in this case, the fact that the issuance of phiphones on January 17, 2018 is not guilty.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below which found Defendant B guilty of the facts charged in this case on the ground that it was impossible to believe that Defendant B’s statement was erroneous in misconception of facts.

B. On July 12, 2018, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, even though the Defendant, in full view of the statement in the investigation agency of misunderstanding of facts B, and the location of the sending base station of the Defendant and B, was found to have delivered a philopon from Sinh-si E to B on July 12, 2018. 2) In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on unreasonable sentencing (the collection of 6 months of imprisonment and 100,000 won) is so

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts in the instant facts charged is that the Defendant is not a narcotics handler. On January 17, 2018, the Defendant received a request from B, who was known to the general public by telephone around 12:16, for “the head of the Gu, would die, scamphones,” and at around 13:00 on the same day, the Defendant met the said B in the vicinity of the D Park in the Scam in the Scam and C at around 13:0 on the same day.

(2) The lower court acknowledged that, based on evidence such as B’s statement, telephone conversations between the Defendant and the Defendant, etc., the Defendant issued a philopon to B around January 17, 2018.

However, the following circumstances revealed in the records of this case, namely, ① the Defendant consistently denies the delivery from the investigative agency to the court of the trial, and ② the Defendant stated that he/she was issued a phiphone from the Defendant at the investigation stage prior to the prosecution. However, on October 12, 2018, he/she denied the Defendant’s statement at the investigative agency that he/she was present at the court below as a witness and made a false statement as a favorable appraisal, and thereafter, on November 5, 2018, he/she stated that the testimony at the prosecution was the fact of legal testimony. However, on November 19, 2018, the Defendant again testified at the prosecutor’s office.