The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

3,630,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

3.2

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. There is no fact that the Defendant administered, delivered, or sold philophones, such as the sequence 1, 2, 5, and 14 in the crime sight table.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. According to the records of ex officio determination, the court of original judgment shall serve a writ of summons, etc. of the defendant by public notice pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings and proceed with the trial in the absence of the defendant on January 9, 2019 and declared six months to the defendant on January 9, 2019. The defendant alleged on February 7, 2019 that he was unable to appear in the trial proceedings due to reasons not attributable when claiming recovery of his right of appeal against the court below on February 7, 2019; the court of original judgment dismissed the defendant's request for recovery of his right of appeal; the defendant raised an immediate appeal; the court of appeal recognized that the defendant was unable to lodge an appeal within the appeal period due to reasons not attributable to the defendant on April 15,

According to the above facts, the defendant was unable to attend the trial of the court below due to a cause not attributable to the defendant. Thus, the court below's judgment has a ground for a request for retrial under the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which constitutes "when there is a ground for appeal," which is the ground for appeal under Article 3

(see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do8243, Nov. 26, 2015). Accordingly, this Court shall proceed with a new litigation proceeding and render a new judgment according to the result of a new trial, and thus, the lower judgment cannot be maintained as it is.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined below.

3. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court in determining the assertion of mistake of facts: