The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, as indicated in the judgment of the court below, did not receive or administer Metecopon from E on May 10, 2015, as indicated in the judgment of the court below, even though he did not receive or administer Mecopon (hereinafter “Mecopon”). The court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case based on E’s investigation agency without credibility and legal statement of the court below. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentencing of the lower court (one year and two months of imprisonment, additional collection of 120,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. The lower court asserted the misunderstanding of the facts as follows based on the evidence duly adopted and examined, namely, the response to the training of phiphones from the Defendant to the appraisal of narcotics, etc. taken around July 23, 2015, and the Defendant had already been subject to criminal punishment on the ground that the philophone was administered around June 8, 2013. The Defendant’s response to the training of philophones was merely caused by the philophones because philophones were not cut back, and there was no administered philophones on the date indicated in the facts charged in the instant case, but in general, her hairs were known to be 0.8 to 1.2 cm in one month, and the her hairs recovered around July 23, 2015 were merely 7 to 8 mm in one month, and thus, they were detected from the philophones by the philophones administered around June 8, 2013.

It cannot be seen that E has consistently stated the major part of the facts charged in the instant case, such as the date, time, place, and quantity of penphones received by the Defendant and E in the prosecutor’s office and the court below’s office, and the amount of penphones received by the Defendant. The Defendant had consistently stated E at the time and place of the second prosecutor’s office at the time and place of the instant facts charged

In full view of the fact that the defendant received philophones from E and sufficiently recognized the fact that the defendant administered them, such as the statement in the judgment of the court below.