The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for six years and for three years, respectively.

seizure.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of imprisonment (7 years of imprisonment and confiscation) imposed by the lower court on Defendant A is too unreasonable.

Defendant

A, on July 10, 2018, prior to the opening of the trial date, submitted a statement of grounds for appeal stating that there was an error of mistake in fact in the judgment of the court below which found A guilty of each of the facts charged in the instant case as guilty.

However, on July 24, 2018, Defendant A and his defense counsel explicitly stated that they withdraw the allegation of mistake of facts at the first trial date and the second trial date on August 16, 2018.

Accordingly, Defendant A's appeal is subject to the judgment of this court only for unfair argument of sentencing.

B. Defendant B (1) seems to contain a misunderstanding of the legal principles, but Defendant B or the defense counsel’s assertion is followed.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, Defendant B conspiredd to import smuggling with the co-defendant A in relation to the fact of smuggling importation (i.e., a single philophone; hereinafter “philophone”).

shall not be deemed to exist.

Even if Defendant B participated in the above crime,

Also, the role performed by Defendant B is merely an aiding and abetting offender under the Criminal Act. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and thereby recognizing the joint principal offender’s liability for the above crime to Defendant B.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to Defendant B (a four years of imprisonment and additional collection) is excessively unreasonable.

(c)

The Prosecutor (Defendant A)’s (the lower court’s sentencing against Defendant A) is unreasonable as it is excessively unhutiled.

2. Even based on the Defendant B’s statement of the lower judgment on Defendant B’s assertion of misunderstanding the legal doctrine, Defendant B was aware of the fact that the instant item contains a philopon from a co-defendant A.

Defendant

B With respect to the suspect interrogation protocol (268 pages of evidence) and the defendant B, two times in the prosecution (268 pages of evidence).