The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Although the Defendant is not a narcotics handler, on May 2, 2015, the Defendant sold phiphonephones by receiving KRW 1 million from the F account in the name of the Defendant’s use of the F account from the above E on May 22, 2015, within a passenger car parked in D 4 exit located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, with approximately 6g of Mesophical mental medicine (i.e., one philophone; hereinafter “philophone”).

2. Determination:

A. The burden of proof and the burden of proof necessary for conviction in a criminal trial is to be borne by the prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on evidence with probative value, which leads to the judge to have a conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt about the defendant's guilt, it is inevitable to determine the defendant's interest (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1151, Jul. 22, 2010). (b) The defendant's assertion consistently falls short of E from the investigative agency to this court, but it is due to the fact that the date and time stated in the facts charged, at the same place, they were in close connection with E at the time, and the receipt of KRW 5 million from E was made frequently due to the fact that there was a difference between E and E at the time.

(c)

In full view of the following objective circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court of this Court, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, such as the legal statement in the E-related criminal case and the prosecutor’s statement in the prosecution, investigation report (Evidence No. 4), and attached documents, alone, was proven without any reasonable doubt.

It is difficult to see, and there is no other evidence to prove.

(1) E’s motive for information (1) E was suspected of delivering a phiphone to another person.