The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

1,500,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant merely assisted K to sell phiphones, and the Defendant does not directly sell phiphones (misunderstanding of fact). The sentence (10 months of imprisonment, additional collection of collection of KRW 1.5 million) that the lower court pronounced by the lower court is too large and unfair (negative). (B) The sentence that the lower court sentenced by the Prosecutor is too uneasible. It is unreasonable that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too uneasible.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below as to the assertion of misunderstanding, the defendant received money from E and received from K and gave it to E. However, it is important to distinguish between "seller" and "person who is aware of the purchase and sale" from "seller". On the other hand, it is important to determine who the purchaser was aware of the purchaser as the seller. On the other hand, E who purchased a phiphone from the defendant merely purchased a phiphone from the defendant and did not want to buy a phiphone from K who was introduced by the defendant. It seems that E did not appear to have any reason to gather the defendant while taking charge of punishment of buphones and perjury, and it is consistent with objective evidence, such as telephone material, and the defendant denied the phiphone, while recognizing the fact that the phiphone was sold in this part of this part, and then recognized that it was not a phiphone but a phiphone, but it was late recognized that it was not a phiphone.

In light of the fact that the defendant's statement related to it is difficult to believe, the defendant sold philophones as stated in the judgment of the court below.

It is reasonable to view it.

The defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

B. We examine both the Defendant and the Prosecutor’s wrongful assertion of sentencing.

As stated in the reasoning of the lower judgment, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the same kind of crime on April 9, 2015 and completed the execution of the sentence and was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for one year during the period of repeated crime.