A little programming can tell us that the order-two elements of ##GL(2,\mathbb{Z}_3)## are as per the following output
[1] "seeking automorphisms of order 2"
[1] "here is an automorphism with determinant 2"
[,1] [,2]
[1,] 0 1
[2,] 1 0
[1] "here is an automorphism with determinant 2"
[,1] [,2]
[1,] 0 2
[2,] 2 0
[1] "here is an automorphism with determinant 2"
[,1] [,2]
[1,] 1 0
[2,] 0 2
[1] "here is an automorphism with determinant 2"
[,1] [,2]
[1,] 1 1
[2,] 0 2
[1] "here is an automorphism with determinant 2"
[,1] [,2]
[1,] 1 2
[2,] 0 2
[1] "here is an automorphism with determinant 2"
[,1] [,2]
[1,] 1 0
[2,] 1 2
[1] "here is an automorphism with determinant 2"
[,1] [,2]
[1,] 1 0
[2,] 2 2
[1] "here is an automorphism with determinant 2"
[,1] [,2]
[1,] 2 0
[2,] 0 1
[1] "here is an automorphism with determinant 1"
[,1] [,2]
[1,] 2 0
[2,] 0 2
[1] "here is an automorphism with determinant 2"
[,1] [,2]
[1,] 2 1
[2,] 0 1
[1] "here is an automorphism with determinant 2"
[,1] [,2]
[1,] 2 2
[2,] 0 1
[1] "here is an automorphism with determinant 2"
[,1] [,2]
[1,] 2 0
[2,] 1 1
[1] "here is an automorphism with determinant 2"
[,1] [,2]
[1,] 2 0
[2,] 2 1
[1] "number of automorphisms of this order found is 13"
Only one of them, the matrix ##N\equiv \left(\begin{smallmatrix} 2&0\\ 0&2 \end{smallmatrix}\right)##, has determinant 1, and in ##GL(2,\mathbb{Z}_3)##, conjugation cannot change the determinant. So that matrix must be in a conjugacy class of its own. That's the automorphism that swaps 2 with 1 in both the first and second coordinates of an element of ##\mathbb{Z}_3\times\mathbb{Z}_3## (##N## is for negate, because 2=-1 in mod 3).
Hence, if there are only two conjugacy classes (result (e) - yet to be proved), then they are not symmetrical, as one will have twelve members and one will have only one. We can take as representative of the larger class the matrix ##F\equiv \left(\begin{smallmatrix} 0&1\\ 1&0 \end{smallmatrix}\right)##, which swaps the first and second coordinates (##F## is for flip).
So we can define our two SDPs respectively based on the homomorphisms that map the non-identity element ##k## of ##K## to ##N## and ##F## respectively.
Thus in SDP1 our multiplication rule will be
$$(h_1,k_1)*_1(h_2,k_2)\equiv (h_1N(h_2),k_1k_2)$$
if ##k_1=k## (ie is not the identity), and
$$(h_1,k_1)*_1(h_2,k_2)\equiv (h_1h_2,k_1k_2)$$
otherwise.
In SDP2 our multiplication rule will be
$$(h_1,k_1)*_2(h_2,k_2)\equiv (h_1F(h_2),k_1k_2)$$
if ##k_1=k##, and the same as in SDP1 otherwise.
Write an element of either SDP as ##((a,b),c)## where ##a,b\in\mathbb{Z}_3## and ##c\in K\equiv\{1,k\}##. Then our multiplication rules for the two SDPs, where the ##K## coordinate of the first operand is ##k## are
##((a,b),k)*_1((A,B),c)\equiv ((a,b)-(A,B),kc)## for SDP1; and
##((a,b),k)*_1((A,B),c)\equiv ((a,b)+(B,A),kc)## for SDP2.
Then investigate the order of elements of the form ##((a,b),k)##. You will find that the number of those elements that have order two differs between the two SDPs. Putting that together with the observation that powers of elements of the form ##((a,b),1_K)## are the same in both SDPs (why?), this shows that the SDPs have different numbers of elements of order two, and hence cannot be isomorphic.