All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In fact, although the Defendant did not sell a penphone to G as stated in the first to third criminal facts as indicated in the judgment No. 2015 class 678, the Defendant sold a penphone to G.

There is an error of law by mistake in the court below's decision.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (a punishment of one year, additional collection of 12,70,000 won is related to both 2015, 678, 2015, and 996, 200,000 won and 200,000 won and 200,000 won and 200,000 won and 200,000 won and 200,000 won and 2015,000,000 won and 200,000

It is too unreasonable to say that it is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On September 3, 2014, the Defendant was not a narcotics handler. However, on September 3, 2014, at the F parking lot located in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, around 16:00, KRW 1.5 million from G, and sold to G, a cigarette locking about 5g of phiphones. On September 11, 2014, at around 11:00, the Defendant purchased from G in 1.5g from G, and sold to G, a cigarette locking about 5g of philopon to G. On December 29, 2014, the Defendant sold KRW 50,00 from G to G, and sold KRW 50,000 from G in 17:30,000 to G.

2) As to the allegation that the Defendant denies that he did not sell phiphones to G, the lower court consistently purchased phiphones from the Defendant from the G investigative agency to the seventh trial date.

After the statement, I reverse the statement to the effect that the Defendant did not purchase philophones from the Defendant at the trial date of 8 and 9 times. While the former part of G’s statement before the reversal is mutually consistent and specific, the latter part of the statement after the reversal does not coincide with that of the Defendant’s statement, and the latter part of the statement after the reversal is not consistent with U’s statement.