The punishment sentenced by the court below (the imprisonment of three years and six months, the surcharge of 3.6 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

The fact that the defendant recognized all of the crimes of this case, and divided the wrong facts, and the defendant voluntarily surrenders to the end of the flight life over seven years, and a considerable mental or physical suffering from abroad during the flight flight period, and thus, it can be seen that the value of the report has reached a certain degree. The fact that the penphone imported by the defendant was seized in whole and has not been distributed in Korea constitutes a favorable circumstance for the defendant.

However, the Defendant was sentenced to seven months of imprisonment due to the violation of the Psychotropic Drugs Control Act in 1997, and was tried to sell and purchase approximately 150 g of phiphones in 1999, and was sentenced to four years of imprisonment for the attempted attempt, and committed the instant crime again in the same kind of crime only within the period and several months from the date of release. In addition, the instant crime of importing phiphones in the Republic of Korea was committed by the Defendant, while residing in the Republic of Korea, to have the Defendant pass through the airport search team or bring them into Korea by using international communication by concealing phiphones through his accomplices. In light of the criminal law and the nature of the crime, and the considerable social harm and injury that occurred when phiphones were distributed due to the transfer of imported phiphones, the Defendant cannot be held liable for it.

Meanwhile, the statutory penalty for the instant crime of importing phiphones is imprisonment with prison labor for life or for not less than five years, and the lower court determined the punishment by means of discretionary mitigation following the choice of imprisonment for a limited term, and comprehensively comprehensively takes account of the Defendant’s age, character, conduct and environment, etc. and other various sentencing conditions as shown in the instant argument, the lower court’s punishment is deemed appropriate, and it cannot be deemed unfair because it is too unreasonable.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jae-chul (Presiding Judge)