Each judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

Defendant

B from B shopping bags.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles in the judgment of the court below) Defendant A did not have conspired to import smuggling between Cambodia and Mampamine (hereinafter “Tampaopon”) on B or his name, and only received philopon imported domestically from Kwikset service.

B) A bank located in the Defendant’s residential room is owned by B, and the bank was neglected, and the Defendant was entirely unaware of the remaining circumstances of philophones in that room, and the Defendant did not possess philophones. As such, the Defendant did not possess philophones. 2) The Defendant’s punishment of the first instance judgment against the Defendants on the allegation of unfair sentencing (each imprisonment of three years, additional collection of 40,508,160 won) is too unreasonable.

B. The punishment (Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months, confiscation, Defendant A: imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months, and confiscation) of the second instance judgment against the Defendants is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendants filed an appeal against each judgment of the court below, and this court decided to hold concurrent hearings. The Defendants’ respective offenses in the judgment of the court below against the Defendants, which were consolidated and tried, should be sentenced to one punishment in both concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Thus, each judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.

However, the argument of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles about defendant A's judgment of the court of first instance is subject to the judgment of this court, and this study will be examined in the below.

B. Although the Defendant also asserted the same content in the first instance court as in the judgment on Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the lower court stated in detail the judgment on the allegation of Defendant A and the defense counsel under the title “the judgment on the argument of Defendant A and the defense counsel.”