All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

20,000 won from the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts (as to the receipt of philophones), the Defendant did not deliver philophones to E, as described in this part of the facts charged, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment in the first instance court which found the Defendant guilty. 2) Even if not, the sentencing of each lower court (the first instance court’s imprisonment: one year and two months, additional collection, and fine of five million won) is too unreasonable.

B. The judgment of the court below (as to the judgment of the court of first instance) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor ex officio, the first and second court rendered a judgment after examining the defendant separately, and the defendant filed an appeal against the first and second court judgment, and this court made a decision to concurrently examine the above two appeals cases. Each of the crimes in the judgment of the court below against the defendant in the first and second cases shall be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of punishment aggravated for concurrent crimes under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, since the crimes in the first and second cases in the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act are concurrent crimes under Article 37 of the Criminal Act and shall be sentenced to a single sentence. In this regard, the judgment of the court below cannot be exempt from all reversal.

However, even if each judgment of the court below has such reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court.

3. The defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is the most important issue of E's statement to the effect that the defendant was issued a philopon as evidence of guilt as to this part of the facts charged, and the defendant asserts that the credibility of E's statement is lacking in light of the circumstances such as not consistent with objective facts or re-afusing the statement.

The first instance court and the first instance court have duly adopted and examined the evidence.