The judgment below

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

Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment of one year and two months.

evidence of seizure.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant A’s imprisonment (compact 2, 4, additional collection of KRW 1,472,00) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

Defendant

B misunderstanding of facts by threatening Defendant A to submit a video recording of a phiphone medication taken by J to an investigation agency, and only mediated the trade of phiphones between Defendant A and J, and there is no fact that Defendant A sold phiphones in collusion with J.

The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment, confiscation No. 8, additional collection, 3,600,000 won) is too unreasonable.

Defendant B, a public prosecutor, obtained profits of KRW 1.2 million on May 28, 2014, and KRW 4 million on June 14, 2014 from the sales of philophones. Defendant B, a public prosecutor, obtained profits from KRW 4.8 million on the sales of philophones, and the remaining amount of KRW 4.8 million, excluding the confiscated KRW 4.4 million, should be collected additionally. However, the lower court erred by collecting only KRW 3.6 million.

The lower court’s sentence on Defendant B of unreasonable sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.

Judgment

Defendant

A's assertion of unfair sentencing is a favorable condition that the defendant's mistake is recognized, that the defendant voluntarily surrenders himself/herself to the investigation agency actively cooperates in the investigation, and that the frequency of medication is only twice more.

However, on April 2014, the defendant was sentenced to suspension of execution due to the crime related to the same phiphone, and committed each of the crimes in this case only for a period of one month, and even after self-denunciation, the phiphone medication was conducted, and the transfer of the phiphone purchased is disadvantageous to the defendant.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the circumstances leading up to the instant crime, the circumstances following the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct environment, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable and unreasonable. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

Defendant

The following circumstances, i.e., the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the Defendant’s assertion of mistake on the part B.