The judgment of the court below is reversed.

As to the crimes of Article 1 of the judgment of the defendant, six months of imprisonment and Article 2 of the judgment of the court.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. Although the Defendant did not sell a philophone to E and F, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, it erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Despite the misapprehension of the legal principle, even if the Defendant was investigated by the prosecution on June 30, 2008 and August 14, 2008 regarding the sale and purchase of phiphones, the prosecutor did not prosecute the Defendant on the part of the sale and purchase of phiphones while prosecuted the Defendant for the charge of administering phiphones at around that time, and the prosecution was instituted on August 14, 2013 after about five years passed. Although this constitutes abuse of public prosecution power, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

C. Even if not, the sentencing of the lower court (the first crime: imprisonment with prison labor for one year, and the second crime in its holding: imprisonment with prison labor for six months) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

A. 1) Determination of misunderstanding of facts: (a) The police interrogation protocol of F on the accomplice who is an accomplice in judgment on F’s purchase and sale of phiphonephones is erroneous in the lower court’s finding of guilt in the absence of admissibility upon the Defendant’s consent. However, in full view of the following circumstances, i.e., the lower court’s decision and evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court and the lower court: (b) the F consistently stated that the Defendant was aware of the fact of purchasing phiphones from the Defendant through E, as stated in the facts charged, and that the F was finally convicted due to the fact that phiphones were purchased from the Defendant as stated in the facts charged; and (c) the F’s judgment became final and conclusive, as stated in the facts charged, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant traded phiphones to F. Accordingly, this part of the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts is without merit.