Of the judgment of the court below of first instance, the guilty part against Defendant A and the judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Each sentence of the lower judgment against the Defendants (Defendant A: imprisonment of 1 year and 4 months in the first instance judgment; imprisonment of 6 months in the second instance judgment; imprisonment of 1 year and 1 year and 10 months in the second instance) is too unreasonable.

B. (1) The prosecutor (1) of the court below's allegation of mistake of facts (as to the acquittal part of the judgment of the court of first instance), Defendant A's delivery of the penphone on February 2, 2014, Defendant B consistently and specifically stated the circumstances that Defendant B received from Defendant A and delivered to I, Defendant B's statement is highly reliable because most of the statements of Defendant B are consistent with the I, Defendant B's own upper line in the police interrogation protocol, Defendant B's upper line in the police interrogation protocol, and Defendant B's upper line in the police interrogation protocol, are written by Defendant B, Defendant B's being known to Defendant A, Defendant A, Defendant A recognized the crime of this case at the prosecutor's office after being detained with Defendant B's information, and Defendant B and I's telephone content, etc., this part of the facts charged should be found guilty.

(B) In full view of the circumstances, including the following: (a) Defendant A’s purchase of penphones on March 8, 2014; (b) Defendant A consistently led to the crime from the police to the prosecutor’s office as to the instant case, unlike the crime committed on February 2, 2014; (b) Defendant A consistently led to the crime from the police to the prosecutor’s office; (c) Defendant A stated a specific statement from R to the point that it is impossible to know without experiencing the circumstances in which he purchased penphones; (d) Defendant A is deemed to sell penphones habitually; and (e) Defendant A’s registration of R identified as the upper line of Defendant A is currently being investigated by the police, this part of the charges must

(C) On the grounds stated in the foregoing paragraph (b) above, the Defendants’ purchase and sale of philophones on March 9, 2014, are determined to have higher credibility of confessions and Defendant B’s confessions statement in the investigative agency of Defendant A and on the grounds that the credibility of Defendant B’s confessions statement should be found guilty.

(2) Of the judgment of the court of first instance on the allegation of unfair sentencing, the court below acquitted some of the facts charged.