A. In fact, the Defendant had no intention on the importation of philophones, because it was true that the Defendant made a suspicion that the Defendant might contain a non-legal object in a travel room which A carries, or that the object was dissipated.

B. The sentence sentenced by the first instance court of unfair sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. (1) In full view of the circumstances in its reasoning recognized by the evidence duly admitted and investigated, the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts determined that the Defendant may also be recognized that the Defendant conspired with A, etc. to use the instant philopon, when he knew that the philop was contained in the philop, or at least dolusium was aware of the fact that the philop was involved in the philopon

(2) In the circumstances revealed by the first instance court's judgment, the first instance court and the first instance court duly adopted and investigated each evidence, and the following circumstances acknowledged by the first instance court. In other words, the Defendant stated at an investigative agency that "A made it difficult to say that an article transported by A was a dangerous article, and that it would be an illegal article," although there were no accurate statements from the investigation agency, at the time of considering various circumstances, A would be an illegal article," and the above statements are consistently maintained up to the court of the first instance; ② in the court of the first instance, the Defendant stated that "A would have known that the article transported by A would be a dangerous article that could be a problem if it is narcotics or discovered," and ③ The Defendant thought that the article transported by A was an illegal article, but did not think that it was a narcotics, etc. treated as an illegal article at the time of Malaysia, but did not think that it was at all."