A. The Defendant, upon D’s request, tried to bring the paper bags for shopping use (hereinafter “the instant paper bags”) to E, and the Defendant was unaware of the volume of the instant paper bags 19.97gh from the penphone on the instant paper.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (five years of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant alleged a mistake of facts as alleged in this part in the lower court, and the lower court rejected the aforementioned assertion in detail by providing a detailed statement on its determination. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated in the lower court and the lower court’s judgment, the lower court’s determination is justifiable.

① The Defendant alleged to the effect that M had D and caused the Defendant to transport the instant bags containing phiphones to the Republic of Korea in order to store a public figure for informing the instant case of smuggling, but M and clearly stated that there was no such fact at the court of the first instance.

② Defendant’s legal action is not consistent as seen below, and thus, it is difficult to believe.

In the first interrogation of suspect, the defendant includes the main electronic, melting, and household goods, etc. within the bank of this case, and all of the defendants are the defendants, but the state electronic stated that he is a gift, and who is the bank of this case.

that is called ‘A person who has been asked'.

‘The statement was made’.

In the second interrogation of the suspect, it was stated that the goods in the instant bags were not the defendant, and that they were the defendant in white again, and that the yellow sealed D would bring about E.

In the third interrogation of suspect, D was brought to E the instant bags in the instant interrogation of suspect.

was stated.

(3) From June 18, 2015 to July 2, 2015, a defendant shall be liable to pay a penalty surcharge.