Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants and the judgment of the court of second instance shall be reversed.

Defendant

A.

1. Reasons for appeal;

A. Defendant A’s punishment (as indicated in Decision 1-A(1) and D1 of the Highest 91 of 2017), each of the crimes listed in Decision 1-A, 2-A, 3 and 4-A, 3 and 4-B of the Highest 502 of the Highest 2017, each of the crimes listed in Decision 1487 of the Highest 2017: Imprisonment with prison labor for 8 months, and imprisonment with labor for one year) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) 1) / [2017 Godan 91] / 201 / [2017 Godan 91] 2-A (1) 4), Defendant’s object of sale of phiphonephones is not “three men with no name,” but “one North Korean defectors without name, Q and name.”

(B) There was no fact that philophones have been administered in collusion with AF, such as Section 2-A(4)(e) among [2017 Height 91].

C) Of [2017 Heights 551] 1-B. Paragraph 1-B, there was no philophones purchased from Y in collusion with AF.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(c)

Defendant

C1) Of misunderstanding of the legal principles [2017 Heights 193], the Defendant’s receipt of phiphones from D cannot be punished separately, insofar as it is merely a receipt of phiphones from D and a joint purchase from AH is punished.

2) The sentence of the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment) that was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

(d)

Defendant

E The sentence of the lower court (the first instance judgment: 10 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended execution, 2 years of suspended execution, 8 months of suspended execution, 2 years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant E ex officio determination, this Court held that the part concerning Defendant E and each appeal case concerning Defendant E in the judgment of the court of first instance were consolidated and deliberated, and since each of the crimes of the aforementioned combined cases is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, one of the above crimes shall be sentenced pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, among the judgment of the court of first instance that sentenced Defendant E separate punishment, the part concerning Defendant E and the judgment of the court of second instance cannot be maintained in this point.