The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant did not deliver C in accordance with the date and time stated in the facts charged, and delivered C in accordance with the Megacule (hereinafter “Handphone”).

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is not a narcotics handler.

1) On August 7, 2017, at around 18:00, the Defendant: (a) provided C with one-time medication of a philopon, a local mental medicine medicine, in a white paper, and received philopon, from the alleyway near the residence in Daegu-gu B.

2) On August 13, 2017, around 20:30, the Defendant: (a) delivered two-time medication of phiphones to C in a white paper near Daegu-gu D, Daegu-gu; and (b) received phiphones by delivering two-time medications to C without compensation.

B. The lower court determined that the instant facts charged can be fully acknowledged, taking into account the following circumstances:

In the light of this, the conviction was pronounced.

1) Although the Defendant stated that he was not in close relationship with C, the Defendant and C made telephone conversations on August 7, 2017, which was the date of the crime indicated in the facts charged, with the following four occasions: (a) around 14:42, August 7, 2017; (b) around 15:53, around 16:01, and around 17:45.

The C's statement to the effect that the above contents of the telephone conversation was required for philophones is reliable.

On the other hand, what is the contents of the above telephone communications.

The Defendant made a statement on the prosecutor’s question only “I would have made a lot of such a low call.”

2) C makes a statement on the form of narcotics received from the Defendant in detail.

Korea also entered the Defendant's office on August 7, 2017.

In addition, a statement was made to the effect that a female kyman was a computer in the house, and the defendant was a woman kyman who actually lives together with the defendant, and this seems to be a fact that C could not know if it was not viewed as the actual defendant's house.

3) Also, around August 9, 2017, C had a telephone call with the Defendant several times, and on August 13, 2017, C had a telephone call used by the Defendant from the location indicated in the facts charged.