Defendant

A Imprisonment of three years and six months, and Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment of four years and six months, respectively.

seizure.

A. The sentence imposed by the lower court (4 years of imprisonment, confiscation) on Defendant A’s assertion is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B’s assertion (1) was not a conspiracy of Defendant B’s co-defendants with the co-defendants, etc. to import smugglings (hereinafter “copon,” hereinafter), and Defendant B’s copon, which was delivered by Defendant B to the co-defendants A, was received from L airport toilets, and there is no fact that Defendant B imported copon.

Nevertheless, the lower court found Defendant B guilty of having committed the smuggling among the facts charged against Defendant B.

(2) misunderstanding of the legal principles, Defendant B sent a penphone to Co-Defendant A, but this constitutes an act forced to have been forced to have a pistold by an infinite female in a L airport toilet, and thus, the responsibility should be dismissed.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby finding the Defendant guilty.

(3) The sentence sentenced by the lower court (five years of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Although Defendant B had the same assertion as the grounds for appeal in this part of the judgment of the court below as to Defendant B’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, the court below rejected Defendant B’s assertion in a very detailed manner under the title “judgment on Defendant B and the defense counsel’s assertion” in the judgment.

Examining the above judgment of the court below after comparing it with the records, it is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations by the defendant B, the court below did not err by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment

Defendant

B’s assertions in this part are without merit.

3. The lower court, ex officio, held that the Defendants’ act of exchanging a phiphone imported by smuggling, is separate from the crime of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. by the Import of phiphones.