The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 1) The Defendant did not sell a philophone to F. The Defendant did not have sold philophones.

2) The Defendant did not have administered philophones in China.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment, additional collection of KRW 700,00) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) In full view of the following circumstances admitted by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the Defendant can fully recognize the fact that the Defendant sold phiphones to F as described in paragraph 1 of the lower judgment.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion that this part of facts is erroneous is without merit.

① In the police and the prosecution, F, “The Defendant purchased a phiphonephone in the amount of three million won, and then does not express a phiphone with money to her.

It is doubtful that philophones do not disappear.

Hp. The phrase “h. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H., withdrawn KRW 600,000 from the account under the name of his spouse G, giving the Defendant with a philopon, and received one injection machine containing a

“Evidence of Evidence” (Evidence 78, 485, 488, 489). Even if F provided information with a view to enabling F to be favorable for sentencing in one’s own trial, there are circumstances in which the F provided information.

However, in light of the aforementioned specific and consistent statement in F’s motive and background, source of the purchase price, and situation before and after the purchase price, the statement made to F’s investigative agency is sufficiently reliable.

② On January 2, 2017, F purchased phiphones from the Defendant around 19:30 on or around January 2, 2017, the Defendant and F frequently conveyed to each other, and the Defendant appears to have met F at the time and place of the instant crime.

(3) However, F has purchased philophones as the Defendant in the court of original instance.