The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. In relation to the summary of the grounds for appeal (fact-finding) in the judgment of the court below, the amount of the penphone purchased by the defendant is 0.085 g and 2 to 4 as stated in the facts constituting the crime, the court below found the defendant guilty of all the facts constituting the crime of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(1) In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the defendant's statement in the investigation agency of E is credibility and the defendant can sufficiently be recognized that he/she purchased phiphonephones from E as stated in the facts charged. Thus, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is without merit. The defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is without merit. The defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is without merit. The defendant's assertion of unjust sentencing added to the summary of oral argument in August 14, 2013, submitted by his/her counsel after the deadline for submitting the statement of grounds for appeal was not timely.

① At an investigative agency around July 2012, E initially known the Defendant through the introduction of D (one-person L) at the investigative agency, and delivered a written phone to the Defendant on the same day. After that day, E, even if having traded a written phone on three occasions with the Defendant, made a clear memory and statement on the frequency and quantity of trading a written phone with the Defendant.

(2) The Defendant: (a) acknowledged that E was delivered by the introduction of D in the initial investigative agency’s statement and denied the remainder of the crime; (b) thereafter, the Prosecutorial Investigation at the third prosecutorial Investigation at the same time stated that the fact that he was delivered a written phone on two occasions is memory; and (c) stated that it is not suitable to memory due to brain surgery; and (d) E made the details of telephone conversations with the Defendant.