All appeals filed by A and the defendant and the applicant B for medical treatment and custody shall be dismissed.

a public prosecutor at the trial.

A. With respect to the facts stated in Section 1-A (A) of the decision of misunderstanding the facts, Defendant A1 was aware of the international cargo delivery on the international cargo delivery as stated in the judgment of H, and did not receive the philopon in collusion with H, and there was no fact of selling the philopon to Defendant B at the time and place stated in Section 2-B (b) of the decision. 2) The sentence (five years of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the Defendant of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B- The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant and the applicant for medical treatment and custody (hereinafter “Defendant”) (hereinafter “Defendant”) is too unreasonable.

2. The part against Defendant A

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part of the judgment below, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion in detail in the “decision on Defendant A’s argument” on the 10th of the judgment. If the judgment of the lower court is closely compared with the evidence duly adopted and examined, the judgment of the lower court can be justified, and the judgment of the lower court is not unlawful, and even based on the examination of R and H conducted at the trial, it does not seem that the judgment of the lower court is unlawful. Furthermore, the evidence submitted by the Defendant at the trial alone alone cannot be seen as having sent H a written phone to the Defendant without any contact with the Defendant. Accordingly, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

In light of the content of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined in the first instance court, there are special circumstances to deem that the first instance court’s judgment on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance was clearly erroneous.