The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

As a defendant, 300,000 won shall be additionally collected.

3.2

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1’s misunderstanding of the facts and the misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant, by selling only 0.05g philphones to E, recognized the act of delivery in addition to the act of sale, even though it constitutes only the act of “sale” under Article 4(1) of the Narcotics Control Act. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (two years of imprisonment, additional collection of one million won) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, 1) Whether there was an act of delivering phiphones or not, the Defendant is not a narcotics handler.

(1) Around 20:00 on December 4, 2017, the Defendant: (a) sent 200,000 won of the sales price of the Handphone to E from H adjacent to the G located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, to E, and sold the Handphone with KRW 200,000,000 of the sales price of the Handphone, which is a local mental medicine within the 7-K7 passenger car of E driving that was parked in the vicinity of the D. D’s highway located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

(2) The Defendant: (a) was driving between 19:00 on December 4, 2017 and 23:00 on December 4, 2017 by E.

FA car put 0.43 g a philopon into the container so that E may bring it into the container, and then provide E with a method of informing E of the fact, and received philopon.

B) In the lower court’s determination, the Defendant did not admit and challenge the instant facts charged, and the lower court convicted the Defendant of the instant facts charged.

C) Comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the first instance court, the Defendant sold 0.05g 200,000 won to E, as indicated in the lower judgment.