All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of the facts charged as to the defendant's misunderstanding of facts 1) as to the defendant's testimony without credibility as evidence of C's testimony, and the defendant purchased a penphone from D.

2) In the lower court’s trial, the Prosecutor (non-indicted) and C living together with the Defendant around the date and time indicated in this part of the facts charged.

The F made a statement with C at the time, and the F traded with A who was known as a person living together with C at the time.

In full view of this, it can be seen that the other party who made a philophone transaction with F is the defendant.

F) As stated in the facts charged in this case, the F was convicted of the fact that the Defendant received phiphones from the Defendant and became final and conclusive. After the above judgment became final and conclusive, the F reversed the prosecutor’s statement that corresponds to the facts charged in the original trial and made a false statement favorable to the Defendant. Since F did not disadvantage himself due to the final and conclusive judgment on him, it is highly likely that he made the above statement because it was necessary to easily purchase phiphones from the

In light of this, the F’s prosecutor’s statement that corresponds to this part of the facts charged is highly reliable, and according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, such as the F’s statement by the prosecutor, the lower court acquitted the F on the charge of violating the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. related to F, even if it is sufficiently found guilty, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (a sum of KRW 10 million) is too heavy or too harsh (the defendant).

2. Determination

A. The Defendant (guilty part) also argued that the Defendant is identical to the assertion of the facts in the above appeal, and the lower court rejected the above assertion in detail, and it is just in the lower court’s determination on the credibility of the C’s statement, and C is so-called.