The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the prosecutor’s appeal is that the court below acquitted the charged facts of this case on the grounds that there is no proof of the crime. However, although C’s statement is reliable and sufficient to recognize the facts charged, the court below rejected C’s statement without reasonable grounds, and the court below erred by misapprehending the rules of evidence, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. On April 16, 2012, the lower court stated that (i) C was arrested and investigated in the act of committing a crime in violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (fence), and (ii) the police and the prosecutor’s office changed statements regarding the chophone medication on several occasions; (iii) the chophone medication was not an spirit at the time of the police investigation with regard to the chophone medication; and (iv) the police officer made a statement that the chophone medication was not the same as that of the police officer on the grounds that he did not interfere with the treatment of people; and (v) the police officer made a

In addition, only when the statement made by the police and the prosecutor was changed in the first investigation of the police and the prosecutor, and the second investigation of the prosecution was conducted on April 16, 2012, it was made to make the statement that the penphone administered on April 16, 2012 was sought from G (name, name of the defendant and name of the defendant) rather than from the path, and after being investigated more than several times, the content of the statement was added or changed to be suitable for the facts charged in the instant case.

In light of the fact that C’s statements have been changed several times, and that it is difficult to easily understand the reasons for the change, etc., the credibility of the statement cannot be doubtful.

② At the prosecution, C reported the fact of the purchase and sale of phiphonephones to the public prosecutor, and made a statement that the seller is a person who uses the name of G from H and received contact information from H, and submitted his/her domain of contact information, and only G’s main name is A in the course of investigation through a cell phone subscriber inquiry.