The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for eight years and for five years, respectively.

seizure.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendants’ public defender (Attorney AU, and the subsequent revocation of the appointment of the Defendants) shall also be examined in the following Section 2. (2) (Judgment on the misunderstanding of facts by the Defendants) to the extent that each of the arguments submitted by Defendant A’s defense counsel (Law Firm AR, Attorney ASS) several times after the deadline for submitting the grounds for appeal expires, to the extent that it supplements the grounds for appeal.

1) There is no fact that the Defendants committed an act of misunderstanding of facts (Article 1 and 2 of the Decree on misunderstanding of Facts) with each philophone and sculatory import, such as the entries in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the facts charged.

B) The Defendants did not have any fact in collusion with E, G, H, and F that they imported penphones, and Defendant A merely knew of the fact that Defendant A was introduced into Gad and knew of the remainder, and Defendant B became aware of the foregoing people. C) Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendants guilty by taking false statements to the effect that the Defendants had a criminal record of the same kind, and F and I had a false statement to reduce their sentence. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged against the Defendants, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence (a0 years of imprisonment and collection, 5 years of imprisonment, 5 years of confiscation and collection) that the lower court sentenced the Defendants on the grounds of unfair sentencing (a) is too unreasonable and unfair. (b) The prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (not guilty part in the grounds) that the Defendant had a criminal record of the same kind of crime against the Defendant A, the lower court, solely on the ground that the crime described in paragraphs 1 and 2(a) of the facts charged is difficult to be deemed due to the Defendant A’s discovery of a criminal record of the same kind of crime, on the ground that it is difficult to view that the crime described in paragraphs 1 and 2(a) of the facts charged was attributable to the Defendant A’s discovery of a criminal record of smuggling importation, but (b) Defendant A has a total of