The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Of the facts charged in the instant case of mistake of facts, as to the sale of phiphonephones, the Defendant’s phiphonephones sold and sold are approximately 0.02g, not about 0.2g, and the Defendant made a statement at an investigative agency as above, but was mistakenly written in the interrogation protocol.

B. At the time of the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder or mental disability with mental disorder.

C. The sentencing of the lower court (one month of imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes No. 1 in its original judgment, two months, and two and three months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes No. 2 and three in its decision) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant stated that the penphone, which was traded in the process of the investigation by the prosecution, is about 0.2g as well as the police investigation, and further, DNA purchased the penphone from the defendant in the course of the investigation, also stated that the penphone, which was purchased from the defendant, is about 0.2g (in the investigation record, about 0.2g). In full view of the above points, the fact that the penphone purchased by the defendant is about 0.2g can be acknowledged.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion on this is without merit.

B. According to the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mental disorder, it can be recognized that the defendant suffered from depression disorder, etc. and received treatment from the hospital. However, in light of the background leading to the crime of this case, the method and method of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., it cannot be seen that the defendant had lost or weak ability to distinguish things or make decisions due to depression disorder at the time of the crime of this case. Thus, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

C. The facts that some of the crimes of this case committed ex post concurrent crimes are favorable to the defendant, but the court below's decision is identical.