Defendant

The appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The Defendant did not deliver a penphone to E at each time and place of the facts stated in the instant crime.

E is a statement that he was issued by the Defendant in a false manner to conceal the actual supplier after being investigated by an investigative agency on the fact of the administration of his phiphones.

As to the facts charged in the instant case, as the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment on January 19, 2012 and the judgment on the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc., which became final and conclusive, was under way, and the Defendant received the instant investigation and requested a prosecutor several times to prosecute the instant facts charged at an early time after combining the instant facts charged in the judgment of the lower court, but the prosecutor brought a public prosecution on July 13, 2012, which was after the judgment of the lower court was rendered, and the Defendant did not undergo a joint trial, and thus, it constitutes an abuse of the right to prosecute, and thus, is unlawful

The sentence of the court below's decision on the grounds of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The evidence consistent with the criminal facts of this case, which corresponds to the determination of misunderstanding of facts, is eventually a statement at the investigation agency, the original court, and the trial.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the Health Team, the original court, and the trial court as to whether each of the statements made by E can be reliable, namely, (1) E consistently stated in the criminal facts of this case from the investigation stage to the trial at the trial at the trial at the court, and (2) stated that he/she was issued a written phone from the Defendant, and in particular, the Defendant and E had a telephone call several times on the date and time stated in paragraph (2) of the criminal facts of this case; and (2) E, upon administering a written phone received at the above date and time, has a written phone at the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office prior to August 5, 201, which was stated at the first prosecutor's office.