The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

30,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant, by misapprehending the legal principles, purchased a philophone jointly with a policeman on October 2015 and a around January 5, 2016, and sold a philophone to B on each of the above dates, without having sold philophones. The Defendant sold philophones to B.

In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The punishment of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment, additional collection of KRW 300,00) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined in the lower court’s judgment and the lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal doctrine, the Defendant may fully recognize the fact that he/she sold 0.05g of philopon to B on October 2015 and around January 5, 2016, and thus, the Defendant’s allegation in this part is without merit.

① In a case where the Defendant, who was prosecuted for selling phiphones, contests to the effect that he/she is not a seller, whether the Defendant constitutes “seller” or not would be an important standard for whom the buyer recognized as the seller.

B made a statement consistent with the changed Defendant’s statement in the trial at the trial of a party stating to the effect that “not purchasing phiphones from the Defendant, but jointly purchasing phiphones from L with the Defendant,” and that it was consistent with the changed Defendant’s statement. However, at the investigation stage (199 pages of evidence record) and the lower court, the Defendant purchased phiphones from the Defendant.

In light of the fact that there is sufficient motive to make a statement that corresponds to the statement of the defendant that is changed in favor of the defendant due to the relationship between the defendant and the defendant, it is difficult to believe that the statement at the court below is more reliable than that at the investigation stage and the court below.

Thus, in this case, B is intended to purchase philophones from the defendant, not L.