The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Notwithstanding the fact that the Defendant did not sell phiphones to E, the lower court found the Defendant guilty as evidence of the following facts: (a) despite the fact that the Defendant did not sell phiphones, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the sending details of the cell phone that the Defendant did not use and the protocol of prosecutorial statement made on March 21, 20

2. Determination

A. On March 16, 2008, the Defendant was not a narcotics handler, and around 22:15 on March 16, 2008, received KRW 2.8 million from E in the name of the purchase price of psychotropic drugs, and traded approximately 20 grams to him.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by compiling the evidence as indicated in its judgment.

C. (1) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below whether the defendant used J mobile phone, in the investigation agency, E stated that there are two mobile phone numbers of the defendant as I and J (Evidence No. 258). The location of the provider station in the same time zone as I and J mobile phone calls appear to be the same, and there is no call details, and the same person appears to use I and J mobile phone (Evidence No. 161, 163-191 of the evidence record), ② E stated that the defendant was a foreigner who was enrolled in the name of the investigative agency and J mobile phone (Evidence No. 258 of the evidence record). In fact, J mobile phone is limited to the name of the subscriber (Evidence No. 161 of the evidence record). The above specific content appears to have been known if the defendant directly speaks, ③ The phone number of the defendant's mobile phone and E mobile phone are included in the phone number of the defendant.