The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

30,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact misunderstanding (as to the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. by Handphones Purchase) the Defendant received free of charge not purchasing 0.35 gh from E at the date and place indicated in this part of the facts charged, but purchasing 0.35 gh from E at the place. 200,000 won paid to E at the time was not the purchase price of Handphones but only the money in the name of repayment of the previous loan.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (an additional collection of 2 years of imprisonment, 300,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. In light of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of factual misunderstanding, E is consistent with the investigative agency, namely, ① to provide the Defendant with the one-time popon medication free of charge on or around January 2017, and separately from the “to provide the Defendant with the one-time popon injection at the time of the crime in this part,” the Defendant stated that the Defendant consistently with the investigative agency that “E purchased the one-time popon phone with the two hundred thousand won in return,” and the Defendant consistently stated in the investigation agency that “E purchased the one-time popon phone with the two hundred thousand won in return.” In full view of the facts charged in this case, the lower court also led to the Defendant’s assertion of the fact that the Defendant paid two hundred thousand won to E at the time specified in this part of the facts charged and purchased the one-time popon under the name of the purchase price. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion of factual misunderstanding

B. As to the wrongful assertion of sentencing, the crime of this case is likely to be criticized in that the Defendant, on two occasions, received or purchased scopphones and administered scopphones three times, and the nature of the crime is not less than that of the crime, but the Defendant has already been punished six times due to drug crimes, and the Defendant, on June 5, 2014, committed the crime of this case without being aware of the execution of the final sentence as a drug crime, and committed the crime of this case without being aware of it.