All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfairness) and misapprehension of the legal principle were merely delivered a philopon to the J upon the request of Defendant A, and it did not sell or intended to sell philopon in collusion with B as stated in the facts of the crime of the case of 2015Da4555 in the decision of the court below.

Defendant

B There is no fact of conspiracy with A as stated in paragraph (1) of the crime of the 2015 Gohap455 case as stated in the lower judgment.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine that found the Defendants guilty of this part of the facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The punishment sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing (five years of imprisonment, six years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

As to the Defendants’ assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendants asserted the same purport as this part of the grounds for appeal, and the lower court rejected the Defendants’ assertion on the following grounds: (a) comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances: (b) Defendant A was aware of the fact that the Defendants were not simply requested from Defendant B to deliver phiphones but actively agreed on the quantity of phiphones; and (c) it seems that Defendant A would have been in charge of setting the conditions for phiphones under his responsibility, such as having an implied intent on the sale of phiphones; (b) it is reasonable to deem that there was an implied intent on the part of the Defendants, upon introduction of the J from Defendant B; and (d) the Defendants conspired to sell phiphones or have intended to sell phiphones to J, or have attempted to sell phiphones.

The sales of the instant phiphones.