The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defendant;

A. Although the Defendant did not purchase a philophone from F, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the FF that each purchased a philophone had sold philophones to the Defendant, and H that F was at the site when selling the philophones to the Defendant, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. Although the Defendant did not keep a philophone in the Defendant’s residence, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of holding a philophone based on the evidence collected in accordance with the illegal seizure procedure. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2. Determination as to the purchase of each penphone

A. In the instant case where the Defendant denies the purchase of philophones, the F’s credibility of the statement should be determined in full view of the reasonableness, objective reasonableness, consistency before and after the statement, and the interests of F, which can be seen as the statement, in order to acknowledge a guilty of the facts charged on the grounds of F’s statement, and the F’s statement should be determined whether the F’s statement was credibility (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Do1779, Apr. 10, 2014). In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly investigated and adopted by the lower court and the first instance court, the F’s statement that each Defendant sold philophones to the Defendant is not reliable.

(1) On March 29, 2013, F was arrested by suspicion of carrying in of philophones, etc., and seized KRW 1046g and cash KRW 60,925,00. On April 2, 2013, F made a statement that “the Defendant sold philophones to the Defendant.” On April 17, 2013, F made a statement that he/she sold philophones to the Defendant.”