Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the guilty part and the judgment of the court of second instance shall be reversed, respectively.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for one year, and Defendant B.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (unfair sentencing: imprisonment of one year and six months, confiscation, additional collection of KRW 4,974,00, and KRW 2: 3 months, and additional collection of KRW 600,00) is too unreasonable.

B. As to Defendant B (i.e., misunderstanding the facts on Nov. 28, 2016), Defendant B (i) attempted to take clothes upon A’s request, and (ii) attempted to take clothes, such as the charge, on Nov. 28, 2016.

The sentence of the first instance court (two years of imprisonment, confiscation, additional collection of KRW 1650,00) is too unreasonable.

(c)

(1) The court below found the Defendants not guilty of this part of the charges, based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, despite the fact that the Defendants received philophones as shown in the facts charged, with regard to the receipt of philophones by the Defendants as to November 28, 2016.

Shebly Sentencing 1 of the lower court's sentencing is too unfluent and unfair.

2. The judgment of the court below 1 and 2 against Defendant A on the ex officio judgment of Defendant A was rendered and both the Defendant appealed. The prosecutor appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance, and the court of first instance decided to consolidate the above cases with the court of first instance.

Defendant

Of the judgment of the court of first instance against A, the prosecutor’s appeal against the acquittal portion of the judgment of the court of first instance is without merit as shown below, and the conviction portion of the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and one sentence should be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the above part cannot be maintained as it

3. As to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake on the facts, the lower court held that “the Defendants issued and received one injection machine from Defendant A, which is contained in the 0.44g g of the philopon, around November 28, 2016, to Defendant B,” the Defendants were the first police officer on November 1, 2016 in the lower court’s court.