The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The lower court found the Defendant guilty of violating the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fluence) due to the smuggling importation on December 4, 2013 among the facts charged in the instant case, and acquitted the Defendant on the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fluence) due to the smuggling importation on November 18, 2013.

On the other hand, only the defendant appealed, and the prosecutor did not appeal, which became final and conclusive.

Therefore, the scope of this court's adjudication is limited to the defendant's conviction.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

There is no fact that the Defendant, in collusion with G or D, imported a penphone on December 4, 2013.

The protocol of interrogation of the accused by the prosecution does not have any voluntariness, and the statement D, F, etc., which corresponds to the fact of smuggling on December 4, 2013 among the facts charged in the instant case, is not reliable.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendant of the smuggling on December 4, 2013 among the facts charged in the instant case was erroneous and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The punishment sentenced by the court below on the defendant (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the Defendant argued to the same effect as the grounds for appeal in this part.

The lower court, under the title "2. Judgment on the Defendant's and defense counsel's argument", acknowledged facts as indicated in its reasoning, and acknowledged the prosecutor's interrogation protocol on the Defendant against the prosecution, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence of the trial, namely, the circumstance that the Defendant transferred to G the fact that the Defendant had been sentenced to imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc., the Defendant’s first patrol officer, G, D, and F, and the conversations that the Defendant first divided into S.