All appeals by the Defendants and by the Prosecutor against Defendant C are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B(1) misunderstanding of fact (the importation of philophones) was accompanied by the Defendant’s request by A to receive A and the international contact, or the Defendant got a paper envelope from K on behalf of A, and there was no fact that the Defendant conspireded for the importation of philophones with A and H.

However, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged that the defendant imported phiphones in collusion with A and H is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (five years of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant C (unfair sentencing)’s punishment sentenced by the lower court (i.e., penalty amounting to KRW 30 million) is too unreasonable.

(c)

The public prosecutor (unfair sentencing against Defendant C)’s sentence sentenced by the lower court against Defendant C is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant B’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts, considering the following evidence: (a) Defendant A’s statement in the original court (the process of introducing the Defendant to H; (b) the ambiguous contents on the import of the phiphones with the Defendant and H; and (c) the process of delivering the phiphones from H; and (d) the content of the A’s written statement in the original court on the process of delivering the phiphones, which are specific and exchanged by A and H, and the content of the text messages sent and received from H, and the credibility of the written statement in the original court’s judgment is sufficient) as to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts, the Defendant may sufficiently recognize the fact that the

2) For the same reason, the lower judgment that found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is justifiable and there is no error of law by mistake of facts like the grounds for

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

B. As to Defendant B’s wrongful assertion of sentencing, the Defendant recognized the remainder of the crime except for the crime of smuggling, and the Defendant’s wife wanted to have the Defendant’s wife.

However, narcotics-related crimes are addicted to narcotics.