The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

20,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

1. According to the statement of investigation agency E, an accomplice of the grounds for appeal, and the trial records of the Seoul Northern District Court 2014 High Court 2014 High Order 3346 High Order and the final judgment of the above case containing a statement of confession of facts charged as the defendant, Seoul Northern District Court 2014 High Order and the final judgment of the above case, the defendant may fully recognize the fact that he/she has delivered a penphone

However, the lower court, as a matter of course, states that the protocol of statement in the E investigative agency on the grounds that the whereabouts of E is not unknown without mentioning the above protocol of trial and the written judgment admissible as evidence, and acquitted each of the facts charged in this case.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion of judgment.

2. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is as follows: “On July 19, 2014, the Defendant received a dacthophone from E, a dactylphone (one philophone; hereinafter referred to as “philophone”) with dactylopic sulpopic sulpon, which is a local mental medicine, at the home of the Defendant’s apartment unit D, at around 05:00, on July 19, 2014.

On the 29th 22:00 of the same month, the Defendant received a single-use injection 0.1g of philophones from E, who had the single-use injection 0.1g of philophones at the same place as above 1.

“.....”

3. The lower court determined that there was no direct evidence to acknowledge the facts charged of the instant case (the evidence submitted by the prosecutor that a phiphone was issued by the Defendant).

Although there is each statement in the investigation agency of E, each statement in the investigation agency of E is inadmissible because the defendant did not consent to use it as evidence, and the authenticity of formation is not recognized by the statement of the original person.

On the other hand, the prosecutor asserts that the statement in E's investigation agency is admissible as evidence under Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but E receives a summons of the prosecutor, witness, and this court.