The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and three months.

No. 1. the certificate of seized 2014 Highest 2050 Cases

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The Defendant, on January 2014, did not purchase 10 g a philopon from D in the early 2014, and D was subject to a non-prosecution disposition (suspected) on the charge of selling philopon to the Defendant.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that found the guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in misconception of facts.

The sentencing of the lower court of unfair sentencing (two years and six months of imprisonment, confiscation, additional collection 18,797,100 won) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

This part of the facts charged against the assertion of mistake of facts is that the Defendant did not deal with Maak, but purchased 10,300,000,000 philopon from D in a small passenger car established near the Seocho-gu Seoul Southern Terminal, Seocho-gu, Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul, in January 2014.

Judgment

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the trial court, the defendant recognized this part of the facts charged at the investigative agency and the court below, but only denied this part of the facts charged at the time of the trial, and it can be acknowledged that D was investigated by the defendant about the suspicion of selling the phiphones, but was not prosecuted on the ground that he was not guilty.

However, in light of the fact that the defendant led to confession of this part of the facts charged in the investigation agency as well as in the court of original instance, and made a concrete and consistent statement about the place and method of purchasing phiphones from D, the credibility of such confession can be recognized.

In addition, around April 2, 2014, the defendant was seized while possessing 5.15 g phiphones. At the time, the result of the appraisal by the National Institute of Scientific Investigation, which was found to have detection of phiphones from the defendant's urine and hairs, the defendant's statement that he received phiphones from the defendant around February 21, 2014 (Evidence 7 pages of the evidence in the case No. 14Da2925), and if the defendant did not purchase them as in the facts charged, he carries a large number of phiphones.