The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The Defendant is not a narcotics handler.

On January 26, 2017, the Defendant deposited KRW 300,000 from B in terms of the price for cambacopon (here lopon lopon lopon lopon lopon lopon lopon lopon lopon lopon lopon lopon lopon lopon lopon lopon lopon lopon lopon lopon C and D apartment parking lot around January 27, 2017.

2. The recognition of facts constituting an offense in a criminal trial ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes a judge not to have any reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof does not sufficiently reach the extent that it would lead to such conviction, even if there is suspicion of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense contradictory or uncomfortable dismissal, it should be determined in the interests of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2000Do5701, Jun. 11, 2002; 2008Do8137, Jan. 15, 2009). In full view of the following circumstances revealed by records, it is difficult to believe that the statements made by the witness B’s investigative agency and this court, which seem to conform to the facts charged, are not sufficient to acknowledge the facts charged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it only by the evidence submitted by the prosecutor.

① A witness is unable to accurately memory the date of supply of philophones from the Defendant, the purchase price of philophones, and the package of philophones (the witness is memoryd with purchase of 200,000 won from the Defendant around spring of spring of 2017. However, in the course of investigation, the witness and the Defendant made a telephone call around January 26, 2017 and transferred KRW 300,000 to the Defendant by the witness around January 26, 2017, based on the philosophical evidence that the witness transferred KRW 30,000 to the Defendant around January 26, 2017.)

② According to the above currency content, the witness around January 26, 2017.