The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the lower court in light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, it is justifiable to have determined that the lower court convicted all of the parts of the instant charges, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, including the importation of phiphones, the fact that philophones were administered between September 2015 and October 2015, the fact that philophones were administered on the first half of February 2015, and the first half of February 2016. In so doing, the lower court did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending the relevant legal doctrine.

In addition, pursuant to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years is imposed, an appeal is permitted for the wrongful grounds for sentencing. Thus, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal in this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant.

On the other hand, the argument that the defendant's defense right was infringed due to non-existence of facts charged cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal, as it is asserted by the defendant only for the grounds of appeal that the court below did not consider it as a subject of judgment ex officio.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.