All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The crime of attempted sale of narcotics to E and attempted sale of marijuana and philophones related to E constitutes an illegal naval investigation that led to the Defendant’s crime by forging the police as if he were E.

Therefore, although this part of the prosecution should be dismissed, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles as to illegal naval investigation.

B) Even though the Defendant did not have any fact that K and L had no fact at the time of committing the crime charged, and there was no fact that he had administered phiphones together with them, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges by misunderstanding the fact and finding the Defendant guilty.

C) Even though the Defendant did not sell phiphones to S, Z, AI, and AM, and there was no fact that phiphones were sold to S, Z, and AM without compensation, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of all the facts charged by misunderstanding the fact that the Defendant did not sell phiphones in return for payment.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years and six months, etc.) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) Fact-finding misunderstanding (Influencing part: provision of philopon free of charge to BB) of this part of the facts charged, while the testimony of the investigative agency BB, which corresponds to this part of the facts charged, is reliable, the court below reversed the above legal statement, which considered the relation with the defendant, and which did not have credibility, rejected the credibility of BB’s investigative agency’s statement, and it erred in the misapprehension of the facts that

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) On the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant also appealed this part of the lower judgment.