Part concerning Defendant A, B, and D among them shall be reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for 13 years and 7 years.

A. Defendants A) Defendant A: The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unfair sentencing (13 years of imprisonment) is too unlimited and unfair. 2) Defendant B: The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unfair sentencing (7 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3) Defendant C: The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds that the sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment, a fine of KRW 30 million) is too unreasonable, and thus, is unreasonable. 4) Defendant D) mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, Defendant D (a) went to China in the clothes import business tea business, upon request from friendly job offering A, and the Defendant went to China by Mepta (hereinafter referred to as “mephone”).

(B) Since only after the administration verified the state of philophones and transported two philophones, and only failed at all to recognize that A was a haphones to commit a crime that imports philophones into the Republic of Korea, it is not a co-principal relationship. Even if the Defendant had such awareness, it is only an assistance that facilitates the crime. (B) The sentence (five years of imprisonment) sentenced by the lower court of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

5) Defendant F: The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds that the sentence of unfair sentencing (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable. (b) The prosecutor finds the Defendant guilty of the facts against the Defendant C: (1) the Defendant changed the amount to the proposal made by B that the Defendant would take out the bags of KRW 30 million; (2) the Defendant could receive KRW 30 million in return for the taking out of the bags without narcotics, etc.; (3) the Defendant stated that the content of the bank is the same with the same purpose; (4) the Defendant changed the statement from tobacco exempted from the tax exemption; (5) the Defendant used the phone-phones from A; and (5) the Defendant received KRW 15 million from A to transport the phone-phones in the same manner; and (5) In view of the fact that the Defendant was able to receive KRW 30 million in return for the taking out of the bags, and thus, the Defendant could have known that the phone-phone-phones were contained.