The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and six months.

However, the period of three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court acquitted the Defendant of the crime of giving and receiving philophones on June 2015, on the ground that there is evidence by misunderstanding the facts or misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, observation of protection, and community service 40 hours) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle or mistake of facts

A. On June 2015, the Defendant received approximately 0.05g of philophonephones, a local mental medicine, from a person who was unable to obtain his/her name (one name H), at the G Party on the fourth floor of the F Building in Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, at around 23:00, on June 2015.

Accordingly, even if the Defendant is not a narcotics handler, he received philophones, which are a local mental medicine.

B. The lower court rendered a not guilty verdict on this part of the facts charged on the ground that the Defendant led to the confession of this part of the facts charged, but there is no evidence to reinforce the confession, and thus, constitutes a case where there is no evidence

(c)

The reinforcement evidence of a confession made in the deliberation of the court is sufficient if it is sufficient to acknowledge that the confession of the defendant is not processed, even if the whole or essential part of the crime is not recognized, and it is sufficient to prove that the confession of the defendant is true, not that of the crime. Moreover, indirect evidence or circumstantial evidence, which is not direct evidence, may also serve as evidence for reinforcement. In addition, if the confession and reinforcement evidence are consistent with each other, and criminal facts can be acknowledged as a whole as evidence for guilt, it is sufficient to establish evidence for guilt (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do7883, Nov. 27, 2008). In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged by the health care unit and the court below and the court of first instance by legitimately adopting and examining the case, namely, the information of E to the effect that “the person received narcotics from the defendant for injection.”