The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

No. 1 to 22 of the seized evidence.

1. As to the gist of the reasons for appeal (six months of imprisonment) by the lower court, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant was too unfasible and unfair, while the prosecutor filed each appeal by asserting that the Defendant was too unfasible and unfair.

2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by the Defendant and the prosecutor prior to the judgment.

The court below notified the defendant of his decision to judge through a simplified trial in light of the facts charged in this case, and completed the investigation of evidence in accordance with the method prescribed in Article 297-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case by taking into account the evidence presented in the court below pursuant to Article 318-3 of the same Act.

Of the facts charged in the instant case acknowledged by the lower court, the Defendant conspiredd to introduce the joint Defendants into the Republic of Korea with strengthening land system in advance, and the Defendant ordered the strengthening land system through the Internet in Cambodia in advance.

Meanwhile, according to the records, while recognizing the facts charged at the first trial date of the lower court, the Defendant and the defense counsel of the lower court stated to the effect that “the Defendant did not play a leading role in committing a crime” in the pleading process or the summary of the oral argument submitted to the lower court on November 17, 2015, and the summary of the oral argument submitted to the lower court on January 5, 2016.”

Thus, the court below's order that the defendant decided to be tried in a simplified trial pursuant to Article 286-3 of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that it cannot be deemed that the above facts charged were all led to confession in the court and thus, cannot be seen as a case where the defendant can be tried through a simple trial (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do2116, Jul. 9, 2004). Thus, the court below's decision cannot be maintained in this respect.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed ex officio. Thus, the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the judgment on the unfair argument for sentencing.