All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to Defendant A (i) of the facts charged in the instant case, as to the sale of a phiphone on December 13, 2015 among the facts charged, Defendant A, upon Defendant B’s request, introduced and conducted the sale of phiphones, and Defendant B deposited KRW 1.5 million into the bank account of Defendant A’s name. However, even though Defendant B deposited buphones into the bank account of Defendant A, it should be considered that Defendant A actually paid the purchase price to H because the buphones related to the said account are used by H. As such, Defendant A was merely merely merely mediating the sale of phiphones, and there is no fact that Defendant A only sold buphones only to arrange the sale of buphones, but the judgment of the court below guilty the Defendant as to this part of the facts charged, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

In consideration of the fact that the court below's punishment (one year and two months of imprisonment, and 2.2 million won of collection) declared by the court below is too unreasonable when considering the fact that the court below's error is recognized in relation to the crime other than the sale of Dolopphones, information about the supply of Dolopphones, and the fact that the same criminal record is only two times.

B. In light of the following: (a) Defendant B (unfair in sentencing)’s mistake is divided and reflected; (b) there is no previous conviction in the same kind; (c) Defendant A administered phiphones upon the recommendation of the Defendant A; and (d) the administration period is shorter and more than time is shorter; (b) the family member who actively cooperates in the investigation; and (c) the economic situation is not good, the punishment imposed by the lower court (the punishment of eight months and additional collection of one million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a case where the Defendant was prosecuted for the charge of selling phiphonephones (i.e., selling phiphones) and the charge of selling phiphones (i.e., selling phiphones) alleged that he merely arranges the sale and purchase of phiphones, whether the buyer recognized the seller as the seller in distinguishing between the seller and the seller.