The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

No. 1 of the seized evidence shall be charged to the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, although there was no fact that the defendant delivered F a Metepia to F around May 23, 2013, the defendant alleged a mistake of facts (as to paragraph (3) of the facts charged in the original judgment).

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Paragraph 3 of the facts charged is found against the ex officio judgment prosecutor.

As stated in the paragraph, the application for changes in the indictment was filed, and this court permitted the changes in the subject matter of the adjudication, so the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

However, the court below's determination of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court within the scope related to the changed facts charged despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction.

B. Around May 23, 2013, the Defendant issued approximately 0.05 g opphonephones to F in the taxi located behind the N theater located in the Busan East-gu M.

''

C. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the trial court and the trial court: (i) the F testified that the Defendant was issued a Metetopist on the part of the Defendant, she was able to reduce the call from the police around May 23, 2013, and then she was issued a Metetopist on the part of the Defendant in the NA, and the said statement was considerably detailed; (ii) on the same day, at around 16:47, the Defendant confirmed the phone call details with F, supporting the said statement; (iii) the F testified at the police court changed the statement at the trial; and (iv) the F testified testified that there was no fact that the Defendant received Metetopist from the Defendant on May 23, 2013, but was investigated for perjury.