All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal was not notified of the right guaranteed to the defendant under the Criminal Procedure Act, such as the right to refuse to make statements, at the time when the defendant is arrested, as to the legality and admissibility of evidence of the defendant's mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

Therefore, the evidence of conviction submitted by the prosecutor is not admissible as evidence illegally collected.

With respect to the importation of Mespamspams, the Defendant was aware that there was an adult product, etc. in a postal item delivered to the Defendant through international specialty mail, and did not know the fact that there was a Mespamspon (hereinafter referred to as "Mespon"). There was no fact that the Defendant was involved in the crime of importing Mesponspams.

MDM, which was found in the possession of MDMA (MDMA) and found in the Defendant’s residence, was located in the ship of the Defendant residing in the Netherlands, and the Defendant was unaware of the fact that it was located in MD. In that context, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant was in possession of the Defendant.

The sentence of unfair sentencing (10 years of imprisonment, additional collection 3,00 won) is too unreasonable.

The sentence of the court below by the public prosecutor is too unhued and unfair.

Judgment

As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles regarding the assertion on the legitimacy of the investigation procedure (defendants) and the admissibility of evidence, the Defendant also asserted as identical to the grounds for appeal in this part of the judgment below, and the lower court rejected all of the above arguments on the argument and judgment of the Defendant in detail.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning closely compared with the evidence duly admitted and examined, the judgment of the court below is reasonable and there is no violation of law such as misconception of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to admissibility of evidence.

The defendant's argument in this part is without merit.

With respect to the argument on the possession of IMM, it is argued.