The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the philophones issued to A of mistake of fact bring about a defendant, the person who delivered it to A is not the defendant but G, and even though A has recognized it in the police investigation, the judgment of the court below which found him guilty of the facts charged in this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s imprisonment (three months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable in light of various circumstances on the Defendant’s point of unfair sentencing.

2. Determination

A. The lower court acknowledged the following circumstances based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of facts: (i) in the prosecutor’s office and the lower court, clearly stated that “A has delivered a phiphone,” and the police stated that “G has given a phiphone,” the Defendant “I would like to change to G, while I would like to be able to receive the same sentence if I would have known that I would have done so,” and (ii) upon request of the Defendant, A did not immediately administer phiphones received from the Defendant on February 24, 2012; (iii) the Defendant also declared phiphones in the E hotel room at the request of the Defendant; (iv) the Defendant also recognized that the Defendant had received phiphones from the lower court to A; and (v) G made it difficult to recognize the credibility of the Defendant’s statement in the process of making it difficult to recognize that the Defendant had been given a phiphones from the lower court to the Defendant’s 20th day.”