Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part on Defendant D and the judgment of the court of second instance shall be reversed, respectively.

Defendant

D. 1 year of imprisonment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (as to the conviction of Defendant 1’s original judgment), Defendant 1 was aware of the fact at the time when he was issued with a written phone from B, and thus there was no intention to receive a written phone.

(2) The sentence of sentence on the first instance judgment of sentencing (the imprisonment of eight months and the suspension of execution of two years) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence of each of the judgment below against Defendant D (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months and the second instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months) is too unreasonable.

(c)

(1) The prosecutor (with respect to the part not guilty of the first original judgment), Defendant A sold a phiphone to K.

(2) The judgment of the court of first instance that sentenced Defendant A to the punishment of the court of first instance is unreasonable since the sentence that the court of second instance sentenced Defendant D is too uneasible.

2. Determination

A. As the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of second instance on the defendant D, the above defendant filed an appeal against this decision, and this court decided to hold the two appeals jointly for deliberation.

Defendant

Since each crime of the first and second judgments on D is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, one sentence should be imposed. Thus, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance on Defendant D and the judgment of the court of second instance cannot be maintained as it is.

B. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court including the Defendant’s statement in the lower court’s court’s judgment as to Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of fact, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant had the intention to commit the crime of receiving phiphones.

The defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

(c)

The lower court’s judgment on the Prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of the facts alleged in the facts charged on the grounds that it is difficult to believe the AK’s statement consistent with the facts charged as it is, and the remaining evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone is difficult to recognize the part of Defendant A’s sale of phiphones among the facts charged in