The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for eight months and by imprisonment for four months.

Defendant .

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court found Defendant A not guilty of this part of the facts charged in the instant case, on the non-guilty part among the facts charged in the lower judgment, on the ground that the statement that Defendant A provided part of 10g of 10 gramphones purchased from I on the date and time at which the judgment was rendered was rendered was groundless. However, Defendant A’s above statement may be sufficiently believed, and Defendant B’s statement that Defendant B did not receive phiphones as above cannot be trusted, and thus, the part of the lower judgment acquitted was erroneous.

2) The lower court’s unfair sentencing (eight months of imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant A and four months for Defendant B) is deemed too unhued and unreasonable.

B. Defendant B’s misunderstanding of the fact is erroneous in the misapprehension of the fact that the lower court recognized this part of the charges as 10g, inasmuch as Defendant B and I did not know the quantity of the penphone, or did not specify the quantity.

2) The sentence against Defendant B (4 months of imprisonment) of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Before making ex officio judgment on the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor and Defendant B, the Prosecutor examined the reasons for appeal ex officio, and the Prosecutor’s 5-C out of the facts charged in the case No. 2015 high group 1458.

Of the facts charged in the case of paragraphs (1) and 2015 Highest 2963, the respective date and time of the crime in the part 2-B among the facts charged in the case of the 2963 Highest 2015 Highest 2-B, “A person who applied for the amendment of a bill of amendment to a bill of amendment was changed on February 13, 2015 by this court’s permission. This part of the facts charged and the remaining facts charged that the court below found guilty are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and must be sentenced to a single sentence under Article 38 of the Criminal Act. In this respect, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained. However, the prosecutor and Defendant B’s assertion of mistake is still the same.