Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for 13 years and for 5 years, respectively.

seizure.

A. The sentence imposed by the lower court (15 years of imprisonment, confiscation, and collection) is too unreasonable.

B. Although Defendant B (1) was unaware of the fact that the value of the penphones possessed by the Defendant was more than KRW 50 million at the time of committing the crime, the lower court convicted Defendant B of the charge by misunderstanding the fact and finding the Defendant guilty.

(2) The Defendant’s act forced to commit the instant crime constitutes the act forced by intimidation of the Japanese criminal organization.

(3) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (seven years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(c)

The public prosecutor's judgment is unfair because the above-mentioned punishment imposed by the court below against Defendant A is too unhued.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the reasons for appeal by Defendant A and the Prosecutor is highly likely to cause serious harm to individuals and society, and thus requires strict punishment. The amount of penphonephones held by the Defendant reaches 10 km and the Defendant administers them. The fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime in connection with the Japanese criminal organization and organized and planned, is very unfavorable to the Defendant.

However, considering all the sentencing conditions indicated in the argument of this case, such as the confession of the crime from the investigative agency after the arrest of the defendant, the fact that the instant phiphones are seized and distributed during the time, and there is no record of criminal punishment in the Republic of Korea, etc., the lower court did not determine that even considering the above unfavorable circumstances of the defendant, even if considering the above circumstances of the defendant, the lower court’s punishment is too uneasible and unreasonable, rather than that of the defendant’s liability according to the degree of participation in the crime, and thus, is unreasonable.

The defendant's improper argument of sentencing is justified, and prosecutor's improper argument of sentencing is without merit.

B. Defendant B and the lower court’s defense counsel on the assertion of mistake of facts regarding the grounds for appeal by Defendant B.