1. As to the grounds of appeal on collection under the Customs Duties Act of Defendant A and B

A. The additional collection under the Customs Act, unlike the additional collection under the general criminal law, has a punitive nature different from the additional collection under the general criminal law, and if several persons act in collusion to evade customs duties, arrange, transport, or acquire customs stolen goods, if one of the offenders owns or possesses the goods, the amount equivalent to the domestic wholesale price at the time of the crime of the goods may be collected from all of the offenders, regardless of whether the goods are owned or possessed or not. If the offender owns or possesses smuggling, the additional collection under Article 282 of the Customs Act may be made at the time of seizure or confiscation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8401, Dec. 28, 2007).

subsection (b) of this section.

2. As to the grounds of appeal as to Defendant B’s unfair sentencing, inasmuch as imprisonment with prison labor for less than 10 years was sentenced against Defendant B, the allegation that the amount of punishment in the original instance is excessive cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal.

The grounds of appeal by the above defendant against this point cannot be accepted.

3. As to Defendant C’s final appeal, Defendant C stated to the effect that it is dissatisfied with the lower judgment in submitting a petition of final appeal, but Defendant C did not state the grounds for final appeal in the petition of final appeal and did not submit a written grounds for final

4. Conclusion.