The judgment below

The part of the additional collection on Defendant A and B shall be reversed.

Defendant

A 2 million won from A, Defendant .

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the facts constituting a crime in the judgment of the court below in misunderstanding of facts, Defendant C1 refused the Defendant’s request through H to obtain phiphones, and Defendant B thereafter purchased phiphones upon request from the Defendant A. Therefore, the Defendant did not participate in the purchase of phiphones. As to the facts constituting a crime No. 4-A in the judgment of the court below, the Defendant did not purchase phiphones from H, but received phiphones without compensation, and was not transferred 5gs. 2) The sentence of the court below (one year of imprisonment, confiscation, and additional collection of two million won) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant A and B (the Defendant A: imprisonment of 10 months, confiscation, 2.1 million won, Defendant B’s penal collection, one year, confiscation, and 1.1 million won) are too unreasonable.

2. Of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that: (a) on March 19, 2016, Defendant A should additionally collect KRW 100,000 from Defendant B for the receipt of approximately one half of the penphone from Defendant B; and (b) on March 19, 2016, Defendant B should additionally collect KRW 100,000 from Defendant A for the provision of approximately one column of the penphonephone to Defendant A.

However, according to the evidence of the court below, the above defendants can recognize the fact that the above defendants conspired on March 14, 2016 and purchased part of the phiphones, and as long as it orders the collection of the value of the phiphones purchased on March 14, 2016, it cannot be collected again for the receipt or medication.

Therefore, the court below held that the money to be collected from Defendant A is KRW 2 million after deducting the above KRW 100,000,000, and the money to be collected from Defendant B is KRW 1 million after deducting the above KRW 100,000,000,000,000 from Defendant A, but the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the collection, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the collection, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3...