The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc., the Defendant provided D or G with a penphone as stated in the facts constituting a crime in the 2017 Highest 4127 case as indicated in the lower judgment, in collusion with G to sell and purchase a penphone to a person with a name in collusion with G, and there is no fact that the phiphone purchased as above was administered in collusion with G.

In addition, the criminal law of the Republic of Korea does not apply to this part of the facts charged with the sale and purchase of phiphones and the crime of medication committed by the defendant who is China, unless the defendant and G have conspired to sell phiphones and administer phiphones.

However, the court below which found all of the facts charged guilty has erred by misunderstanding of facts.

B. As to the larceny, the Defendant did not commit the crime of larceny in collusion with a person who was unable to obtain a name (i.e., one “I”), M, L, etc., as stated in the facts constituting a crime in the case 5918, which was held in the lower judgment, on two occasions.

Although the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts.

2. Determination

A. Although the Defendant denies all of the facts charged, the Defendant’s determination on the violation of the Narcotics Control Act is consistent, specific, and consistent with the facts charged in this part of the charges, considering various circumstances revealed through the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, including that D, G’s investigation agency and court room consistent with the facts charged, D and G did not seem to have any special circumstance to make a false statement to the effect that the Defendant committed this part of the charges, D and G’s entry into and departure from the Republic of Korea coincide with that of the Defendant, and that the Defendant sent text messages to the effect that “G return home to Korea” was sent from September 2013 to 3-4 months after the Defendant left China.

On the other hand, the defendant held the court below.