The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The gist of the grounds for appeal is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles or the fact that the Defendant requested C to seek samples of adult products to be used in the adult self-readers, which are located in the judgment of the court below (related to paragraph (1) of 2016 high 206-1 in the judgment of the court below). The Defendant merely requested C to import the penphones (hereinafter “instant penphones”) or conspired to import the penphones in this part of the facts charged, and the Defendant asked C to import the penphones in this case. The C’s statement that the Defendant asked C to import the penphones in this case is not consistent with the circumstances in which C received a proposal from the Defendant, the method of importing the penphones, and the cost of purchasing the penphones, and it is not reliable as it is.

Nevertheless, the lower court found Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged based on C’s statement. In so doing, it erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion

The Defendant did not administer philophones with P at the time and place indicated in this part of the facts charged. Moreover, the P’s statement that seems to correspond to this part of the facts charged is likely to be believed as being inconsistent with objective circumstances, and the remainder of the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize this part of the facts charged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.

Nevertheless, the court below found Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment

In light of the various sentencing conditions of this case, the punishment sentenced by the court below (6 years of imprisonment, confiscation and collection) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The Defendant is also aware of the fact that the lower court’s judgment based on the misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal doctrine is identical to the allegation of the grounds for appeal in this part of the lower judgment.