The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal stated that D consistently purchased phiphones from the Defendant from the police, and it is reasonable to view the Defendant as the purchase price for phiphones even the money remitted from D. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that it was not guilty of the facts charged in this case and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. On May 9, 201, the Defendant received psychotropic drugs purchase price of KRW 3 million from D to his account used by him, and issued and sold approximately 0.09g opon, which was 0.09g, written on May 201, 201, operated by D on the backline of Newcheon-ri’s Trade Corresponding Corresponding Corresponding Corresponding Corresponding from D’s psychotropic drugs.

B. The lower court’s determination prosecutor submitted as evidence consistent with the facts charged in the instant case: (i) the statement of D, and (ii) the Defendant’s agricultural bank account, remitted KRW D to May 9, 201, KRW 3 million.

1) D’s credibility of D’s statement was made at an investigative agency as follows. ① On January 9, 2014, D’s statement at the suspect interrogation of the police was made on January 9, 2014, at the suspect interrogation of the police, to lend KRW 5 million from the Defendant on or around March 9, 2012, to the Defendant, and to the Defendant’s wife who again sent cash KRW 3 million to the Defendant on March 2012.

The author stated that he received philophones from him.

D In addition, around May 2012, after asking whether E is good when having access to oneself and having a sexual intercourse, it is necessary to memory that the F, which is a part of society, had been friendly at the time of sexual intercourse, and asked F, so that F, who received a penphone from F on May 2012, and administered the said penphone with E, and even around October 2012, it stated that E received a penphone free of charge from F.