The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact-finding and misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant was guilty of the facts charged in this case by misapprehending the legal principles, even though there was no negligence in which the Defendant did not make detailed judgment on the fact that the goods, which the Defendant proposed to transport from the above person, are narcotics, were narcotics, because he was Korean who could in turn read the United Kingdom and Japan as the ones who were retired from military service and who were proficient in English, and was proficient in English, and thus, he could be punished for a considerable amount of money as the eligible person for the business proposed by a person who was not registered in his name (B).

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (two years of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The defendant asserted that the judgment of the court below is the same as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the court below rejected the above argument in detail with a detailed statement of the defendant's above argument and its decision.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the judgment by comparison with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged by the defendant, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The above part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. The determination of sentencing on the assertion of unfair sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of the first instance court that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of directness taken by our Criminal Procedure Act and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of the first instance court is judged in full when considering the conditions of sentencing specified in the process of sentencing the first instance court and the sentencing criteria.