1. The guilty portion of the judgment below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

except that from the date of this judgment.

According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor as to the summary of the grounds for appeal, the defendant accepted the Metetracule on April 6, 2012 (hereinafter “Handphone”) and received the Metecule on June 20, 2012.

8.1. Although the facts charged are recognized to the effect that each penphone was sealed, the lower court found all of them not guilty.

The punishment sentenced by the court below (three years of imprisonment) is too unhued and unfair.

Defendant

The punishment sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The lower court found the prosecutor not guilty of each of the facts charged regarding the prosecutor's allegation that the prosecutor's allegation of the facts was based on the prosecutor's allegation on April 6, 2012, the receipt of philophones, June 20, 2012, and the receipt of philophones on August 1, 2012, and the importation of philophones on August 1, 2012.

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the circumstances as stated in the court below's holding can be acknowledged. The court below clearly erred in holding that the Z and AC's statements are not reliable based on the above circumstances.

Unless there are circumstances to view, (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do4994, Nov. 24, 2006; 2008Do449, Jul. 29, 2010; 201Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012; 2015Do8610, Apr. 15, 2016). The lower court is justified to have rendered a not-guilty verdict on each part of the facts charged on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, and there is no error of misconception of facts as alleged by the prosecutor.

Therefore, this part of the prosecutor's argument is without merit.

The fact that each of the crimes committed by prosecutors and defendants in this case was poor, and that the amount of smuggling imported is not significant, etc. are disadvantageous to the defendant.

On the other hand, when the defendant was in a trial, the defendant made a confession of the smuggling on October 8, 2012, which reflects his mistake, and the crime of smuggling is not only a long-term crime.