2. The crime of this case is committed by the Defendant, on the following grounds: (a) the amount of the penphone imported and sold by the Defendant is up to 36.95g; (b) the Defendant informed the cellphone to receive the remittance of the purchase price while importing the penphone; (c) planned crimes, such as taking out or entering an aircraft different from the Chinese accomplice; (d) the Defendant did not cooperate with the investigation while staying in China for a long time upon the commencement of the investigation into this case; and (e) some of the penphones imported and sold by the Defendant appears to have been distributed in the city through J, K, etc.

However, considering the sentencing conditions indicated in the pleadings of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., it is appropriate for the court below to render a sentence lower than the lower limit of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines within the range of the applicable sentencing guidelines, and it is not recognized that the sentence of the court below is too heavy or unreasonable, on the grounds of its reasoning of sentencing, in light of the following: (a) the defendant was punished for the same kind of crime; (b) the defendant did not have any previous conviction; (c) the defendant was punished for the same kind of crime; (d) the defendant was engaged in smuggling import; and (e) the defendant did not appear to have committed additional crimes, such as phiphone-phone medication, etc.; (e) although the defendant had escaped from abroad during the investigation process to overseas; and (e) the defendant himself expressed

Therefore, the defendant and prosecutor's argument of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so ordered.