The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds of appeal is as follows: (a) the lower court determined that it is difficult for the Defendant to believe the E’s statement purchased psychotropic drugs from the Defendant, which purchased the psychotropic drugs, (i.e., a single philopon; hereinafter “philopon”); (b) however, the above statement was reversed in view of the fact that the testimony on the time of crime, the volume of philopon trading and packing conditions only differed in minor matters, and it is difficult to view that the testimony at an investigation agency and the court may be significantly changed; and (c) memory may be somewhat unclear as time elapses

In full view of the fact that the facts charged against the defendant cannot be deemed to be inconsistent or inconsistent, and that E designated a person as “F” as the first written phone seller was changed to the defendant, but the reason was relatively persuasive and explained, and that detailed and detailed statements are made on the process of purchasing the written phone, there is an error of misconception of the fact in the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant even though it was found guilty.

2. On June 3, 2008, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. at the Seoul Western District Court (hereinafter “Seoul Western District Court”) and completed the execution of the said sentence on April 4, 2010.

The defendant is not a person handling narcotics.

On June 19, 2012, the Defendant sold 10,000 won from E to E in the street in the vicinity of the Do subway Station in Busan Metropolitan City, and in return, sold opphones by receiving KRW 0.06 g of 10,000 from E.

3. Determination

A. Although E made a statement as to the date and time of the instant crime, the investigative agency stated as “Policeman in June 2012,” the lower court did not clearly state the time when E purchased phiphones by stating that “I will accurately know whether it is five or six months or not.”

B. E purchased ‘0.06g degree' at an investigative agency in relation to the volume of philophones purchased from the Defendant.