The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant, upon the request of E, who is the actual purchaser of a phiphone, assisted the trade of phiphones by the method of delivering phiphones to E by receiving phiphones from the person who is the branch line, and does not sell phiphones directly to E.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. It is important to distinguish between "trade" and "trade assistance" in cases of handling phiphones prohibited from handling under the Act on the Management of Narcotics, Etc. in determining the misunderstanding of facts or the misapprehension of legal principles from "trade".

If a purchaser is aware that he/she is the party to the transaction of a phiphone and received a payment of the purchase price and the delivery of the phiphones, the other party to the transaction shall be deemed the seller of the phiphones, and it is difficult to see that such person is merely the one who mediates the transaction of phiphones.

According to the evidence duly admitted after the examination of evidence, E testified at the investigative agency to the effect that “E purchased four disposable 1.2 million won or more from the Defendant,” and the Defendant also sold the instant phiphone to E from the investigative agency to the court below, and purchased the phiphone from E.

The statement was made to the effect that “not speaks.”

Comprehensively taking account of these facts and all the circumstances revealed by the record, E perceived the Defendant as the seller of phiphones, and the Defendant also seems to have sold phiphones directly to E as the party to the transaction, such as the facts charged.

We do not accept the Defendant’s factual mistake or misapprehension of legal principles.

B. We examine the sentencing conditions and the reasons for sentencing of the lower judgment as indicated in the instant case’s records and changes in the judgment regarding the unfair argument of sentencing.