A. The lower court convicted all of the facts charged of this case, but the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine as seen below, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

1) Upon AX’s request, the Defendant: (a) introduced and introduced Met-to-face (one philophone; hereinafter “philophone”); and (b) did not play a leading role, such as planning the entire crime; (c) seeking writingphones from China; or selling them in Korea (Seoul Central District Court No. 2016 High Court No. 2016 High High Court No. 150).

Criminal facts

No. 1. 2) The Defendant did not participate in the criminal facts No. 2-A of 2016 Gohap 150 Gohap 2016 Gohap 2016 Gohap 247 or share a functional role or conspired to do so.

The I's statement concerning this part is not reliable because it is merely a statement that is made by confluence of the internal relationship of F, G, etc. with the inside relationship of F, G, etc.

3) The Defendant did not know K and did not provide K with a penphone (2-2-2 of the crime No. 150 Gohap 2016 Gohap 150 Gohap 2-2). 4) The Defendant knew that the importation of a penphone from the textphone under No. 2016 Gohap 549 is a vessel investigation, and did not import a penphone to R, etc. any longer.

It is only true that there was a conviction, and there is no substantial participation or share of the act of commission in this part of the crime.

Q was received from the Defendant’s wife

The amount of KRW 6 million is not paid by the defendant to Q with the cost of transport of phiphones, but the money that the defendant lent to Q is transferred to Q according to M's request.

5) While the Defendant was staying in Cambodia without any other reason, the Defendant was merely accompanied when Ma talks with V or W, which is a sign of transport of phiphones, and did not participate in the crime of smuggling import (No. 2016 Gohap 549).