All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant: The lower court convicted Defendant on the charge of the administration of philophones on D among the facts charged in the case of the 2018 Highest 2625 case. However, the Defendant did not in collusion with D on the pertinent date and administered philophones to D. Nevertheless, the lower court’s judgment convicting Defendant of this part of the facts charged was erroneous in misunderstanding of facts. (ii) The sentence of imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) sentenced by the lower court on the summary of the allegation of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Public prosecutor: The summary of the allegation of mistake of facts and unreasonable sentencing 1) The lower court’s determination of facts against the Defendant, among the facts charged in the case of 2018 Highest 2625 and the charge of receiving phiphones, the Defendant himself/herself, the charge of administering phiphones, among the facts charged in the case of 2018 Highest 2626, the charge of administering phiphones (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the charge of not guilty part of the original trial”).

However, in full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the facts that the defendant committed the same crime as the facts charged in the judgment below can be fully acknowledged. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the defendant on the facts charged in the judgment of the court below is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts. 2) The sentence that the court below rendered on the summary of the allegation of unfair sentencing is too unf

2. Determination

A. In full view of each of the facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court’s judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the Defendant can be recognized as having conspiredd with D with D in collusion with D on May 14, 2018 at the Bade 22:30 Siljin-si, Jijin-si, 2018.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law as alleged by the defendant.

(b).