All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Summary of Reasons for appeal

A. Defendant 1’s misunderstanding of fact (as to the crime of selling philophones to AF), the Defendant did not sell philophones to AF as described in the facts charged in this part, and purchased philophones together with AF (as to the crime of selling philophones) (the Defendant asserted on the ground of “unfair sentencing” only on the ground of “unfair sentencing” in the statement of grounds for appeal, but added the aforementioned misconception of fact as to each of the crimes of selling philophones to AF newly following the attempts to submit the due date for appeal (each of the crimes described in Paragraph 4 of the judgment of the lower court 2020 order 2360).

This can not be a legitimate ground for appeal due to the assertion after the lapse of the reasons for appeal, but this part of the argument below should be judged ex officio). 2) The punishment sentenced by the court below unfairly (three years of imprisonment, confiscation and collection) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (related to the crime of purchasing phiphones to B), evidence submitted by the prosecutor, in particular, according to the prosecutor's office of AF and the statement at the court of original instance, the defendant purchased phiphones from B as stated in this part of the facts charged.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and legal principles.

2) The above sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unhued and unfair.

2. Ex officio determination (ex officio reversal of Amendments to Bill of Indictment) the prosecutor applied for the amendment of Bill of Indictment with the content that the clause is modified as follows at the trial of the case 2020 order 2360 order.

However, there was a change in the facts charged or the subject of the trial was different from the original trial.

As such, it shall not be deemed as a separate ground for reversal (see Supreme Court Decision 95Do489 delivered on September 29, 1995, etc.). [Defendants charged prior to the amendment]

A. From May 2019, the Defendant: (a) from the Habman on May 2019

6. The person is parked in Cheongdo-gun, Cheongdo-gun, Gyeongwon.