The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and four months.

Nos. 1 and 2 of seized evidence shall be charged to the defendant.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, inasmuch as there was no fact that the Defendant, around December 27, 2013, delivered a penphone without compensation to C. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Unless otherwise, the lower court’s sentencing (one year and eight months of imprisonment, confiscation, and collection) is too unreasonable.

Judgment on misunderstanding of Facts

A. On December 27, 2013, the Defendant: (a) around 02:00 on December 27, 2013, issued approximately 0.03g of Metepopty 0.03g of psychotropic drugs, which are psychotropic drugs stored in the PC room located in the Busan Dong-dong, Busan, to C without compensation, at the PC room located in the Busan Dong-dong.

B. The Defendant’s testimony at the investigative agency and the trial court that he/she received approximately 0.03g of phiphonephones from the Defendant as evidence that seem to correspond to the facts charged in this part of the judgment, and the Defendant consistently recognized another criminal facts from the investigative agency to the court of the original trial, and argued that there is no fact that he/she delivered phiphones to C.

C and the defendant as co-offenders of the crime of trade of phiphonephones, and as long as the defendant denies the interrogation protocol of police officers against C, they cannot be used as evidence.

In addition, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the trial court, i.e., the statement that C was issued by the Defendant on January 10, 2014 when the first police statement was made by the Defendant, and that C reversed the statement as of December 27, 2013 at the time of the investigation conducted by the prosecution after the investigation by the prosecution; ② if the Defendant’s statement was issued on December 27, 2013, it appears that the custody and administration were made by December 17, 2014 after the lapse of two months from the date of the Defendant’s statement, and ③ C was in the process of performing the game at the PC as Defendant J.