The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant is merely attempting to purchase a philopon by accompanying B to the site where B purchases a philopon, not selling a philopon to B.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (nine months of imprisonment, nine months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine the argument of mistake of facts: (a) the defendant and B's statement in the original trial court or in the trial court or in the investigation agency (However, the defendant and B are in the requisite accomplice relationship; and (b) the defendant have not consented to the police interrogation protocol regarding B as evidence; (c) it is not admissible as evidence; (d) the police interrogation protocol concerning B as to the suspect in the relation of accomplice relationship is inadmissible. Nevertheless, the court below adopted the above interrogation protocol as evidence and completed the examination of evidence, but there are errors in the determination of admissibility of evidence; (e) it does not seem to have affected its conclusion in light of the fact that the above interrogation protocol was adopted as evidence; and (e) the price, time and place of delivery of the logphone are all heard from the defendant and purchased it, and there is no interest in the status or sales conditions of the original supplier; and (e) the defendant also knew the defendant and the defendant did not appear to be a mere statement from the original supplier, and (e) the defendant did not appear to be a suspect and the defendant did not appear to be a witness.