The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

A penalty of one million won shall be additionally collected from a defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Of the facts charged in the instant case, there is no corroborative evidence as to the confession of the Defendant regarding the purchase of each penphone around September 2013, around November 2013, and around January 2014.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment, additional collection of one million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The determination of the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the Defendant’s assertion on the part at issue (1) notwithstanding that the Defendant is not a narcotics handler, at around 19:00 on September 2013, 2013, the Defendant purchased psychotropic drugs from B, which are psychotropic drugs containing approximately 1/3 of the day-to-day in front of the post office located in the Dokdo Station in Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, for KRW 300,000 and around 20:0 on November 20, 2013, at around 20:0, the Defendant purchased psychotropic drugs from B, which are 1/2 of the day-to-day in front of the office located in Geumcheon-gu, Geumcheon-gu, Seoul, for approximately 350,00,000, psychotropic drugs, which are 00,000 in front of the office located in Geumcheon-gu, Geumcheon-gu, Seoul at around 10:30,000 on January 18, 2014.

(2) The reinforced evidence of a confession can only be sufficient if it can be recognized that the confession of the defendant is not processed, even if the whole or essential part of the crime is not recognized, and it can not be indirect evidence or circumstantial evidence.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Do4091 Decided September 28, 2001, etc.). As to the instant case, B recognizes the fact that the investigative agency sold phiphones to the Defendant at the time of the above criminal facts (Evidence No. 251 of the record). The Defendant’s hair ingredients were detected from the Defendant’s hair, and the Defendant’s phiphones are identical to the Defendant.