The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for six years.

seizure.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles - The Defendant purchased a car from a person who was the motherland to whom the punishment of violence, etc. was imposed. At the time of the purchase, the Defendant was kept in custody of the car in the car, and the Defendant was subject to the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (hereinafter “Assault Punishment Act”).

(2) The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges on this part by deeming that the Defendant carried dangerous articles that could be commonly used in violence without good cause. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The lower court’s sentence (six years of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts) The Defendant merely went to a post office to receive a postal item upon Defendant A’s request, and the said postal item was not known at all.

Even if the defendant knew of this, the defendant does not have a functional control as a co-principal, even if he knew of this, by aiding and abetting the import of phiphones, or by making a small participation.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which judged that the defendant imported phiphones in collusion with the defendant A is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The Defendant did not in collusion with the Defendant A to administer phiphonephones.

In the narcotics inspection of the defendant, the reaction of philophone training was caused by the reaction of philophone training to the defendant, and when the defendant administered philophones by the so-called laves, the possibility that the gases would inhale to the defendant, or the defendant would have philophones in the math in the car of the defendant A.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which judged that the defendant had administered phiphones in collusion with the defendant A.