The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

80,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment and additional collection) is too unreasonable.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor 1), the court below erred by misapprehending the fact that the defendant provided a penphone to C on March 21, 2015, and thereby acquitted the defendant, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination as to the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts

A. On March 21, 2015, the Defendant, at around 00:20, provided approximately 0.03 g of the Meet cancer (one philopon), which is a local mental medicine (one philopon), to C, at the “M” coffee L in Busan Shipping Daegu, on March 21, 2015, where the Defendant is not a narcotics handler.

B. The lower court’s determination is somewhat exceptional that C’s statement at the court of the lower court and records are as follows: (a) ① keeping the phiphonephone received from the Defendant for at least two months without any particular reason; (b) the Defendant was detained as a phiphone-phone crime on April 8, 2015; and C also seems to have been aware of the fact; (c) it is difficult to understand that C administered the phiphone received from the Defendant on June 1, 2015, when the Defendant was detained; and (d) C received approximately 0.03g of the phiphone-phone, which is a phi-phone, from the Defendant at the time of the prosecutor’s investigation.

When about 70 days have elapsed since the 0.03g of philophones are enclosed with paper, there is a possibility that the paper might be shot, and ④ in the court of the court of the court below the fact that C is a paper, vinyl, shotphones, and the defendant makes a statement different from the statement in the prosecutor's office, comprehensively taking into account the fact that the defendant provided C with philophones to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt about the provision of philophones.

§ 23.