A. The lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, even though the name of the depositor (not guilty portion in the original judgment) was related to the part on the sales of philophones recorded in “A” and “AC,” the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the charges.

B) With respect to U’s sales of philophones, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, even though U testified on the fact that U purchased philophones from the Defendant at the court of the lower court, erred by misapprehending the facts. (C) In relation to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (compacting) due to the importation of philophones with a value of at least KRW 50 million, as in the instant case, where U sells philophones on the whole country in the form of “lapsing” as in the instant case, the lower court should apply KRW 261,00 per g, an average intermediate of philophones transaction, or KRW 220,00 per g, the middle

Therefore, the value of 120,060,000 won (460g x 261,00 won) or 101,200,000 won (460g x 220,000 won) or 101,200,00 won (460g x 2200,000 won) on which the Defendant imported is obviously more than 50,000 won, so Article 11(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes applies, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that acquitted the Defendant

2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won for imprisonment and a fine of ten million won, confiscation, confiscation, additional collection of KRW 69,982,00) is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair. (B) Although misunderstanding of facts (Defendant 1) B (the original judgment) attempted to use the Defendant as a means of transport of a penphone that was closely imported by the Defendant, there is no collusion relationship by refusing this.

Even if the defendant conspireds to import smuggling with B, the defendant is prior to the commencement of the crime of smuggling import.