All appeals filed by prosecutors and defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Prosecutor 1) In collusion with D on July 3, 2014, the Defendant misjudgments the fact that he/she conspired with D (hereinafter “clopon”).

(2) On July 4, 2014, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged even though the Defendant purchased approximately three grams, and on the same day as the new wall on July 4, 2014, deemed that he administered phiphones together with D. The lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the charges. (2) The sentence (one hundred months of imprisonment) sentenced by the lower court of unfair sentencing is too

B. Defendant 1) Until October 6, 2014, Defendant 1 did not administer philophones between around October 6, 2014 and around October 15, 2014, and Defendant’s seizure procedure against Defendant’s defense was unlawful. As such, evidence related thereto cannot be used as evidence because it constitutes illegally collected evidence. 2) The sentence imposed by the lower court of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. There are D’s investigative agencies, legal statements in the lower court, statements in the protocol of transactions, and mobile analysis reports, which correspond to the prosecutor’s allegation of misunderstanding of facts.

Considering the circumstances in which D had been arrested and made a statement one week after the date of the crime in this part of the facts charged, D could have been seen to have had a clear memory as to this part of the facts charged, D could not make a consistent statement by reversing D’s statement without any circumstance sufficient to obtain the Defendant’s consent on the background of remitting KRW 1,500,000 to a certain extent, the background leading up to the Defendant’s purchase, the background leading up to the Defendant’s custody of 3g of phiphonephones, the place of phiphone medication, etc. In light of this, D’s statement appears difficult to be reliable, and it is difficult to find the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged solely on the basis of external

Therefore, the prosecutor's argument of mistake is without merit.

B. Judgment 1 on the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles is first based on the Ministry of Health and Welfare and the protocol of seizure (Article 176 of the Investigation Record).