The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, (1) with respect to the purchase of philophones on May 2, 2014 and the sale of philophones on June 24, 2014, it is merely a matter of lending KRW 300,000 to E and receiving KRW 0.7 g of philophones on collateral, and again returning KRW 300,000 from E and receiving return of KRW 300,000 from E, and it is not a purchase or sale of philophones.

(2) As to the sale of philophones on June 15, 2014, it is merely a delivery of philophones purchased from E by O, and the Defendant does not sell philophones to O.

B. The lower court’s sentence (one year and four months of imprisonment, confiscation, additional collection of KRW 1,413,80) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the assertion on the assertion of the misapprehension of the legal principle (1) : (a) the purchase of phiphones on May 2, 2014 and the sale of phiphones on June 24, 2014; and (b) the evidence duly examined and adopted by the lower court based on the legal statement in E at the trial; (c) the Defendant purchased phiphones from E on May 2, 2014; and (d) sold phiphones on June 24, 2014; and (e) the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

(2) On June 15, 2014, according to the court below’s legal statement in E andO, the defendant can be found to have sold philophones to O on June 15, 2014. Thus, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

B. There are favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant divided wrong judgments on the assertion of unfair sentencing and made an important cooperation in the narcotics investigation.

However, considering various sentencing conditions, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, criminal records, motive, means and consequence of the crime, degree of damage, circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence of the court below is too excessive.