The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

In full view of the statements in the investigation agency and court of the court below and the defendant's statement in the investigation agency about aiding and abetting the sale of philophones, despite the fact that the defendant contacted with C to assist C to purchase phiphones from D, the court below found the defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged. The court below erred in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The time and place of the crime of the instant facts charged regarding the administration of phiphonephones are not specified lawfully, on the basis of the Defendant’s Madon appraisal result, C’s statement at the investigative agency, location of the cell phone call station, etc.

There is an error of misapprehension of legal principles in the court below's dismissal of a public prosecution.

Judgment

As to aiding and abetting trade of philophones, the lower court, on the grounds the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, is insufficient to recognize this part of the facts charged.

In light of this, the lower court acquitted this part of the charges.

In light of the following circumstances, the witness D, at the court of the court below and the court of the court below, held that the Defendant’s philophones in possession of the Defendant’s philophones upon the Defendant’s request from C to sell the philophones at the court of the court below, and that it did not constitute a transaction between the Defendant and C.

In addition to the fact that even based on D's statement, D only traded with the Defendant and did not deal with C, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by mistake as alleged by the prosecutor.

As to the administration of philophones, the lower court, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, interferes with the Defendant’s exercise of right to defense.