The judgment of the first instance shall be reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for five years, for nine years, and for seven years, for Defendant C.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant C1) misunderstanding of facts is unreasonable because the first instance court of unfair sentencing sentenced Defendant C to imprisonment (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable. Defendant C merely interpreted in the course of gathering and executing a crime in which Defendant B and H import of phiphones, and did not engage in functional control through an inherent act, such as soliciting the import of phiphones with Defendant B, etc., or bearing expenses incurred in import of phiphones or taking responsibility for the market of phiphones imported.

B. The Prosecutor’s first instance court’s sentence (the Defendant A: imprisonment of 2 years and 6 months; imprisonment of 5 years; and Defendant C’s imprisonment of 3 years) against the Defendants is too unfasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Defendant C’s assertion of mistake of facts is not a person handling narcotics. The summary of this part of the facts charged is that the Defendants are not all persons handling narcotics. Defendant A received psychotropic drugs from G in the Chinese heart, and transported them to the Republic of Korea via Hong Kong. Defendant B received Handphones transported by Defendant A and sold them to H, and Defendant B purchased Handphones if imported, and Defendant C took charge of contact and interpretation of phiphones between B and H. On January 26, 2015, Defendant C conspired with the following Defendant 1, which was lawfully concealed from G to 2 km, and Defendant C took charge of the above 19:1 of the Incheon High Court en banc Decision 25:16: 1: 25: 26: 1: 26: 26: 26: 26: 1. 26. 26. 201 of the aforementioned mother.