A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, although there was no fact that the Defendant purchased a penphone from Taiwan.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (three years of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of misunderstanding the facts or misapprehension of legal principles also made the same assertion as the grounds for appeal, and the lower court, accordingly, the Defendant made a detailed statement at the prosecutor’s office on the following grounds: (i) the Defendant appears to have naturally manifested the fact based on his actual experience; (ii) the Defendant, in the absence of direct evidence in the process of interrogation of the police police police box after voluntarily surrendered to the Busan East Police Station, stated additional crimes of purchase and import of philopon, which are disadvantageous to himself; (iii) the Prosecutor changed the previous statement on the purchase and import of philopon, while maintaining the confession from the police station; (iii) the Defendant left the military prosecutor’s office on June 11, 2018, leaving the military prosecutor’s office with a detailed statement on the process of purchase and import of philopon; and (iv) the Defendant’s statement on the admission and import of philopon in compliance with the date of examination by the prosecutor’s office; and (v) made it easy to reverse the Defendant’s confession and import of philopon.