The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of violation of the Narcotics Control Act, etc., nor did the Defendant sent a penphone to Korea in China, or asked for the receipt of a house containing narcotics to H.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the grounds of the statement of H without credibility. In so doing, it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the charge of forging official documents and by misapprehending the legal doctrine, nor by forging a passport to the J.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case on the grounds of the statement by J without credibility. It erred by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(c)

The sentencing (five years of imprisonment and confiscation) of the judgment of the court below against the illegal defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. Comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances, the lower court’s determination on the assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine on the crime of violation of the Narcotics Control Act (e.g., the fact that the Defendant imported phiphones from China to the Republic of Korea, as stated in the facts of the lower judgment, can be acknowledged.

① At the time of receipt of parcels, H asked parcels in China under the name of “E,” and asked to answer as customers who are well known to E in terms of whether the number of parcels is well known to E, and who are frequently frequently in the billiard hall.

In addition, H received the said parcel by informing the source of its name and the Hand phone number to the source of the said parcel.

However, H was unaware of the person “E” in fact.

He, therefore, seems to have received parcels regardless of the name of the addressee, knowing that the parcels have been put to a party branch in China.

(2) H is the original judgment as to whether the defendant accepted parcels from H and asked by telephone.