The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

The Suwon District Prosecutors' Office, seized.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and improper sentencing)

A. In relation to the crime of violation of the Narcotics Control Act (compact 2017 high 216) due to misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the crime of importing phiphonephones shall be deemed to be a crime in the condition that it reaches the number immediately after unloading of phiphones from a ship or aircraft into the Republic of Korea or bringing them into the ground from the ship or aircraft, and since around January 27, 2017, C had already arrived of phiphones from the Incheon International Airport and caused the occurrence of the crime of importing phiphones to receive phiphones, it cannot be established as a joint principal offender against the defendant who contacted C to receive the above phiphones on January 28, 2017.

In addition, the Defendant conspiredd to import the instant phiphones.

It can not be seen that the defendant did not have functional control over the above import crime.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (a 3 years of imprisonment, confiscation, and collection KRW 100,00) is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. The Prosecutor maintained the previous facts charged with respect to the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. by the Import of 2017 Gophonephones at the trial of the party, and selectedly applied the provisions of the law as “Article 60(1)2 and (3), Article 4(1)1, Article 2 subparag. 3(b), and Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act,” and applied for amendments to the indictment as follows.

Accordingly, the subject of the court's judgment was changed.

In addition, as examined below, this court found the defendant guilty of the facts charged (the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. due to Attempted Possession of Handphones) which is selectively added, which is found guilty at the court below, in relation to the remaining crimes and concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, which are found guilty at the court below, one sentence should be imposed pursuant to Article 38 (1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the court below's judgment cannot be maintained in its entirety (the selective charges are the selective charges).