The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

No. 1 or 2 of the seized evidence shall be confiscated.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment, confiscation and collection) is too unreasonable.

B. On February 4, 2015, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (fence) due to the provision of phiphones.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant and the prosecutor, prior to the judgment on the authority of the lower court, the Prosecutor’s primary charge was the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. by the provision of Handphones, which was acquitted on February 4, 2015, and applied for the amendment of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. by the provision of Handphones, which added the facts of the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. by Handphones as the ancillary charge, and this court permitted the amendment, thereby changing the subject of the judgment. This part of the facts charged and the remaining crimes for which the lower court found the Defendant guilty should be sentenced to one sentence on the grounds of concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Accordingly, the lower judgment cannot be maintained in its entirety.

However, the prosecutor's assertion that the prosecutor's mistake of the facts about the main facts charged is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority.

B. On February 4, 2015, the Defendant, at around 20:00 on February 4, 2015, sent to L a free of charge approximately 1.7g of the phonephone in the underground singing stairs in which the trade name near the subway K station located in Seocho-gu Seoul High Court cannot be known.

(2) As to the judgment of the court below, the court below is found to have met with the Defendant at the time and place indicated in this part of the facts charged, but consistently stated that the Defendant offered L at the time 0.1g of the penphones without compensation to L, and that the Defendant did not have any penphones to L, and that the Defendant seems to have met the above facts charged.