The judgment below

Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for a year and six months.

seizure.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by the court below (a punishment of imprisonment with prison labor for three years, confiscation and collection) on Defendant A is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B’s assertion (a punishment of imprisonment with prison labor for three years, confiscation, and collection) that the lower court sentenced is too unreasonable, as it misleads Defendant B of the facts despite the status of aiding and abetting a criminal, or erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby jointly collecting the total amount of KRW 44 million with Defendant A.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant A’s assertion, the lower court mitigated the statutory punishment by taking into account the following circumstances in favor of the Defendant: (a) the Defendant imported philophones more than seven times over a long period; (b) the total amount of 1,200.4g; and (c) some of the imported philophones directly administered several times; (d) while considering the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant, the Defendant’s confessions and misjudgments; (b) the Defendant has no record of punishment in Korea; (c) has contributed to the arrest of the relevant narcotics offender through cooperation with the investigation; and (d) the gains therefrom seem to be large; and (e) determined the maximum period of punishment within the scope of recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court, taking into account the circumstances favorable to the Defendant.

The lower court’s determination on sentencing appears to have been made within the reasonable scope of discretion by taking into account the following factors: Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc.; and there is no obvious change in the sentencing conditions that can correct the lower court’s judgment in the first instance court; thus, it cannot be deemed unfair because the sentence imposed by the lower court is excessively unreasonable compared to Defendant’s liability.

The defendant does not accept the defendant's unfair argument in sentencing.

B. As to the assertion by Defendant B (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant” in this paragraph), there is a misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to the assertion by Defendant B (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”).