The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, although the Defendant did not deliver a phiphone to E free of charge, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant also asserted the same purport in the lower court’s determination as to the assertion of mistake of facts, and the lower court rejected the said assertion by explaining the detailed reasons in the last part of “a summary of evidence” in the relevant judgment.

In comparison with the evidence, the judgment of the court below is examined closely with the evidence, and considering the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the party, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error as alleged by the defendant.

① The Defendant asserts that the testimony at the prosecution of E is inadmissible or credibility because it is evidence illegally collected by naval investigation. However, according to the records, there is no evidence to deem that the investigation agency caused E to commit a crime by means of deception, attack, etc., and thus, it cannot be deemed that the investigation of E is illegal naval investigation. Thus, the Defendant’s above assertion by the Defendant is without merit.

(2) E, on March 14, 2016, under an investigation conducted by the prosecution, is deemed to have been issued a written phone by the Defendant.

On July 14, 2016, the testimony was reversed by the testimony that he/she brought about the penphone that he/she was hiding on his/her own vehicle, not the delivery of the penphone from the defendant at the court of original instance on July 14, 2016.

However, on December 27, 2016, E responded that the above testimony was conducted by the prosecution after being investigated into the place of a witness, and that he was made a false testimony on July 14, 2016 and that the prosecutor's statement was made on March 14, 2016.

Therefore, it is difficult to recognize the credibility of the E’s legal testimony of the court below.

3. A witness I shall meet on March 12, 2016.