The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

20,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

(e).

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1’s misunderstanding of facts (as to the facts constituting the crime No. 3 of the judgment below in the judgment below), although the Defendant: (a) stated on February 12, 2016, the new wall that caused H to have a philopon; (b) did not seek a philopon; (c) did not provide a philopon to D at around 05:00 on the same day.

2) The sentence of the lower court (one year and two months of imprisonment and 300,000 won of collection) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. On February 12, 2016, the Defendant, despite that he is not a narcotics handler, 05:00 around February 12, 2016, sent approximately 0.03 gramopon 0.03 gramopon, which is enclosed by D, on the street in front of G restaurant located in Busan, Busan, the Busan, Busan, to D.

Accordingly, the defendant provided D with approximately 0.03g of philophones free of charge.

B. As evidence corresponding to this part of the facts charged, D’s investigative agency, the court below, and the court of first instance have the legal statement.

However, in full view of the following circumstances recognized by the record, each of the above D’s statements alone was proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt that the Defendant provided D with 0.03g opon to D without compensation.

It is difficult to see it.

① The Defendant consistently from the investigative agency to the court of the trial of the party, “Although there was a fact on February 12, 2016, she sought a philopon from H along with D to the new wall, the Defendant was unable to seek a philopon, and there was no fact that he provided a philopon to D at around 05:00 on the same day.

The term " is changed".

② At the court of the court below, H also stated that “It was true that it was called K upon the Defendant’s request to damage phiphones, but in fact it was not intended to use phiphones, and later, it was not possible to use phiphones to seek phiphones from the Defendant and seek phiphones from the Defendant, thereby complying with the Defendant’s change lawsuit.”

(3) D. D.