All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to Defendant A (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and Sentencing)’s purchase on April 20, 2017 and the administration on April 21, 2017, there was no fact that the Defendant purchased or administered phiphonephones.

2) As to the administration on March 26, 2017 (the charge No. 6152, Jan. b, 2017) (the charge), even though the amount should be collected based on the average of the transaction price of nationwide phiphonephones, the amount of money was collected.

3) The punishment sentenced by the lower court against the Defendant (a punishment of eight months, a joint collection of KRW 700,000 and a single collection of KRW 200,000) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of sentencing, and improper sentencing) 1) Defendant B purchased a penphone ( March 26, 2017 and the same year).

4. The court below found Defendant A guilty of the facts charged for the purchase of Defendant B’s penphones, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court against the Defendant (a punishment of eight months, a joint collection of KRW 700,000 and a single collection of KRW 100,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the Defendants’ misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. Various circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court regarding Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts; in particular, Defendant A, at the examination of the witness of the first instance court, purchased a philopon on April 20, 2017 as the facts charged, moved from the vehicle to the place where the crime was committed; Defendant B was waiting for the vehicle when Defendant B’s philopon was cut off from the vehicle to the place where the crime was committed.

Further, Defendant A’s statement on April 20, 201, when considering the fact that the Defendants consistently made a specific statement that corresponds to the facts charged from the investigative agency to the original trial, Defendant A made a confession.