The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, as indicated in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the judgment, did not purchase phiphones from F on January 31, 2015 and February 10, 2015.

The lower court convicted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, and the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court consistently asserted that the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the facts was the Defendant, as indicated in this part of the facts charged, sold philophones to the Defendant.

In full view of the fact that the mobile phone call details, account transfers details, etc. correspond to the above F’s statements, and the Defendant appears to have administered phiphones for a considerable period of time, the Defendant convicted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged.

In light of the circumstances pointed out by the court below after comparing them with the records, the judgment of the court below is justified and there is an error of law by mistake of facts as pointed out by the defendant.

subsection (b) of this section.

On February 10, 2015, the Defendant: (a) transferred KRW 200,00 to F around 1:52 of the new wall; and (b) F deposited KRW 200,000,000 from the new wall 2:23, which was later than 30 minutes.

On the other hand, it is confirmed that the defendant had a telephone call near the base station established in G apartment building, which is located in F's residence, around 3:31 after one hour from the defendant.

F Upon the request of the Defendant, the F purchased from N 0.4g opon from the Daeg-dong of Yeongdeungpo-gu with the remittance of KRW 200,000,000 from N, and then delivered the Defendant on the third floor of Seongdong-gu G's apartment parking lot of Seongdong-gu.

The above circumstances are consistent with the F's statements.

F recognized the fact that the Defendant sells philophones twice, as shown in this part of the facts charged, in the course of investigation conducted by the police with respect to suspected purchase of philophones and medication.