The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the crime under paragraph (1) of the judgment of the court below or erroneous determination of facts, the defendant did not have sold philophones to C.

As to the crime of paragraph (2) of the decision of the court below, the defendant is deemed to have administered phiphones according to C's oil sent by the police without the intention of committing the phiphone medication at the time, which constitutes a naval investigation.

In addition, the emergency arrest against the defendant is based on illegal naval investigation as above, and is illegal because it does not meet the requirements.

Therefore, all relevant evidence, such as the result of appraisal of the defendant's hair and defense, which was seized in the form of seizure of the defendant's body and voluntary submission, collected in the process of emergency arrest against the defendant, shall be inadmissible as illegally collected evidence.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment, confiscation, and collection KRW 700,00) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misapprehension of legal principles or misconception of facts

A. First of all, we examine the argument on the investigation into a vessel.

A naval investigation refers to an investigation method by which an investigative agency induces a person who does not have the original criminal intent to commit a crime by means of tricks, schemes, etc., and arrests the criminal. Thus, if a person who has the criminal intent gives the person an opportunity to commit a crime or makes it easy to commit a crime, it cannot be said that it is a naval investigation.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Do1066 Decided May 14, 2004, etc.). In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the court below and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, it cannot be deemed that the police or C did not have any criminal intent to commit a crime for the administration of phiphones, and it is reasonable to view that the defendant, who had no criminal intent to commit a crime for the administration of phiphones, provided an opportunity to commit a crime merely to the defendant who had already been a criminal intent to commit a phiphones.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is justified.