The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In full view of the facts charged on January 6, 2015, including G, F’s statement, remittance details related photographs, and telephone call details, which are misunderstanding accomplices, and the facts that G was convicted of the facts charged regarding the purchase of philopon in collusion with G and F on January 6, 2015, the Defendant is recognized as having purchased philopon in collusion with G and F as indicated in the facts charged.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the above facts charged is erroneous.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (a punishment of one year, a suspended sentence of two years, a surveillance of protection, an order to attend lecture for 40 hours pharmacologic treatment, and an additional collection of 50,000 won) is too uneasy and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On January 6, 2015, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged in detail, on the grounds that the facts charged with the sale of philophones were not proven to the extent of conviction.

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the record, the evidence alone submitted by the prosecutor was proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt as to the sale of philophones. 6 January 2015.

Therefore, the records do not make it difficult to see that G and F made a statement on various narcotics cases including the facts charged in this case in order to deny their suspicion or lower the sentencing, and thus it is difficult to believe that they made their respective statements as they are, and it is clearly proven that the Defendant purchased phiphones from I because no evidence was submitted as to I as the upper line of the facts charged in this case.

Therefore, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the facts alleged in the prosecutor’s assertion, on the same purport.

B. As to the unfair argument of sentencing, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance sentencing is discretionary.