The Prosecutor’s testimony at the lower court is without credibility, and according to the evidence, such as the testimony of the Prosecutor C, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of each part of the facts charged in the instant case on July 16, 201 and September 21, 201, although it is sufficient to find the Defendant guilty of each of the parts of the instant facts charged. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine.

Defendant

In light of the fact that the price of the illegality of collection is different according to the quality and the criteria for the calculation of the amount of collection should be calculated at the purchase price in the U.S. local government, not the wholesale in the Incheon area, it is unfair that the lower court's sentencing of KRW 16.2 million is unfair.

The imprisonment with labor (three years and six months) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

The lower court determined that it was insufficient to view that there was proof to the extent of excluding reasonable doubt as to the fact that the Defendant conspiredd with C and D to import additional phiphones on two occasions, in light of D and C’s statements, etc., as to each part of the instant facts charged on July 16, 201 and September 21, 201 from among the instant facts charged.

Comprehensively taking account of the circumstances such as the reasoning of the court below acknowledged by the evidence, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

As long as the quality rating of the instant Handphone and the revenue price or cost actually paid by the Defendant are not revealed in the part of the Defendant’s assertion of illegality, it is right to calculate the amount of collection based on the price of Handphone wholesale in the Incheon area, the place of revenue recognized in the relevant case, and there is no error as claimed by

Although there was no record of punishment for the same kind of crime before the instant crime was committed against the Defendant on the part of the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing, the act of importing narcotics is highly likely to cause serious social harm, and the Defendant.