All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

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

10,000 won from the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, even though the Defendant had never sold phiphones to K at the time and place specified in this part of the facts charged, is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) Even if not, the sentence of the court below (one year of imprisonment, and additional collection) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (with respect to the judgment of the second instance)’s sentencing (one hundred months of imprisonment and a stay of execution) of the lower court is deemed to be too unhued and unfair.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor ex officio, the first and second court rendered a judgment after examining each of the above judgments against the defendant, and the defendant filed an appeal against the second judgment against the judgment of the court of first instance, and this court made a decision to concurrently examine the above two appeals cases. Each of the crimes in the judgment of the court of first and second instance against the defendant shall be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of the term of punishment increased by concurrent crimes under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act in relation to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the judgment of the court of first and second instance shall be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of the term of punishment increased by concurrent crimes in accordance with

In addition, the prosecutor applied for amendment to a bill of amendment to the indictment with the phrase “as of May 16, 2014” changed from the facts charged in the case of 2015No117 to the phrase “as of May 16, 2014,” and since this court permitted it, the judgment of the court of first instance cannot be maintained any more in this respect.

However, even if each judgment of the court below has such reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court.

3. This part of the facts charged regarding the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts.