The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for six years.

Of seized philophones 985g(No. 1).

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal and the grounds for appeal by the Defendants subject to the judgment of this court are that the sentence of imprisonment (seven years of imprisonment and confiscation (Defendant A) imposed by the lower court is excessively unreasonable.

In this regard, Defendant A argued to the effect that there was an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles in the judgment below through the submission of the appellate brief as of October 29, 2018.

However, on November 27, 2018, Defendant A’s defense counsel stated on the date of the first trial of this Court, that such mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are withdrawn, and that only the grounds for appeal on unreasonable sentencing are the grounds for appeal.

Defendant

A I also stated to the effect that all facts charged are recognized in this space.

On the other hand, Defendant B’s defense counsel reversed the position of the original court that denied the criminal intent of the receipt of the textphones through the submission of the statement of reasons for appeal on October 31, 2018, and recognized the crime, and only the allegation of unfair sentencing was the grounds for appeal.

On November 27, 2018, the first trial date of the court, the first trial date of this court, Defendant B stated that all charges were acknowledged by Defendant B’s defense of innocence at the court below.

(However, the purport that the instant crime was committed with willful negligence, not with conclusive intention, was stated to the effect that Defendant B was aware of all the instant charges.

Therefore, this court determines the legitimacy of the judgment below on the defendants' assertion of unfair sentencing.

However, as seen below, among the contents argued by the Defendants in this Court, there are parts that are difficult to be compatible with the facts identical to the instant facts charged, the elements of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “Aggravated Punishment Act”), and the legal principles on joint principal offenders.

Therefore, to this extent, we will examine the legitimacy of the argument ex officio.

2. Defendant A

A. The gist of Defendant A’s assertion.