The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and six months.

1,050,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

(a) In the case of the sale of phiphonephones to misunderstanding H, there is no objective evidence other than the testimony of H, which is an accomplice, and the testimony of H, the sole evidence, is not reliable;

In particular, the lower court acknowledged the admissibility of the H portion of the Defendant’s statement in the interrogation protocol of H prepared by a judicial police officer, the statement protocol of H prepared by a judicial police officer, and the examination protocol of the suspect of the Defendant prepared by a judicial police officer, despite the Defendant’s rejection or refusal of the contents, which constitutes an offense of misunderstanding of facts in the lower court which found the Defendant guilty on the grounds of this.

B. The punishment of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment, additional collection) is too unreasonable.

2. First of all, prior to determining the grounds for appeal by the defendant, we examine whether the court below’s ex officio is legitimate.

A. Article 312(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act applies not only to a case where an investigative agency other than a public prosecutor makes a protocol of interrogation of a suspect of H as evidence of guilt, but also to a case where an investigative agency other than a public prosecutor makes a protocol of interrogation of a suspect against another defendant or a suspect who is in co-offender relation with the relevant defendant as evidence of conviction against the relevant defendant. Thus, even if a protocol of interrogation of a suspect prepared by an investigative agency other than a public prosecutor against another suspect who has co-offender relation with the relevant defendant is acknowledged by the suspect's legal statement, the admissibility of evidence is denied if the relevant defendant denies the contents of the protocol at the public trial (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do7185, Jul. 15, 2004; 2008Do5189, Sept. 25, 2008).