The phrase “paragraph 2 subparag. 3 (b)” written in the 3-5th page of the lower judgment is “Article 2.”

A. Compared to misunderstanding of facts and violation of laws and regulations 1), D’s statement is practically the only evidence that seems to support the facts charged in this case, and D’s statement is not reliable in light of the following circumstances. A) D’s statement in the past, despite having been able to assist the Defendant at the time when the Defendant was hospitalized due to a traffic accident, was still in the state where the Defendant was not able to have been able to get out of the hospital at the time when she was hospitalized due to a traffic accident, and D’s statement was sealed upon the Defendant’s request by “in order to get out of the hospital in his criminal case.” Since D’s statement to the effect that it is possible to actively cooperate in the investigation by means of making a false statement to the effect, it is unreasonable to recognize the credibility of D’s statement solely on the basis of the fact that D consistently made a statement on the process of acquiring and bringing in the phone.

B) Although D was asked by the Defendant to carry in a large quantity of philophones through the Defendant, it is difficult to obtain any monetary benefit or consideration from the Defendant. However, D is highly likely to purchase philophones through a entertainment loan with the administration of philophones brought by the point of time at the point of time in the Philippines. D prior to the instant case, prior to the instant case, the Defendant had been sentenced to three years of imprisonment with prison labor by importing philophones under the same method as the instant facts charged, and it is difficult to understand in a common sense that D requested phi to carry philophones by means of philograms. Nevertheless, it is difficult to understand that D’s statement was reliable and that it was proved to be evidence, and that the lower court convicted the Defendant of the instant facts charged by erroneous interpretation and application of relevant statutes, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six years of imprisonment) is too excessive.