Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the guilty portion and the judgment of the court of second instance shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of the legal principles (the guilty part of the judgment of the court below in the judgment of the court below) that the defendant received KRW 10 million from O P, a female living together with theO, but the defendant merely received narcotics criminal information and arrest work expenses in order forO under the charge of violating the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. to be placed in the ship, and did not receive any solicitation from the investigation agency. Thus, the defendant and the defense counsel did not constitute a violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act (the defendant and the defense counsel revoked the verdict of innocence on the first trial date of the court of the first instance, but the defendant argued to the same purport, and the defendant continued to assert the same purport at the last trial date of the court of the first instance while the defendant stated to the same effect as before the court of the third trial, and thus, the defendant stated to the same effect at the last trial of the defendant. 2) Sentencing sentencing (the court below's decision that the defendant maintains his claim of misunderstanding of legal principles) (the sentence 1 and 2).

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (not guilty part of the judgment of the court below of the first instance) communication confirmation data are admissible as evidence in this case, since the fact that a suspectO purchased a penphone from V, tracking a suspect, and securing an accomplice W mobile phone, and are related to this case.

In addition, the O's statements are recognized as credibility in light of the data such as recording records and statement of withdrawals, while the defendant was prosecuted.

The statement of X, which was not clear as to whether it was located at the time of the case, is not reliable.

The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the relevance of communication confirmation data and by violating the rules of evidence, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) Improper sentencing (No. 1 of the lower judgment) is unfair because the lower court’s imprisonment (no. 8 months) is too unhutiled.

2...