A. The fact that each customs law violation listed in [Attachment 247-253] No. 247-253 of the list of crimes in [Attachment 1] as indicated in the judgment of the court of first instance is not verified, and it cannot be deemed that it was proved

Luxembourg, the Defendant was aware of the import of Ledrid’s OEM products and did not know that the producer certificate issued by the Chinese International Trade Promotion Committee was forged, and there was no intention to evade customs duties.

B. The punishment of the first instance court of unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the first instance court and the trial court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant may fully recognize the fact that the Defendant evaded customs duties and the intention of evading customs duties by reporting the anti-control of the low rate, not the de facto anti-control group, while importing the protein of China over 836 times in total, as indicated in the judgment of the first instance court.

① The Defendant, at the court of first instance, led to the reversal of the confessions made in the trial.

It cannot be said that the probative value or credibility of a confession in the court of first instance is doubtful solely on the grounds that the confession in the court of appeal differs from the statement in the appellate court. In determining the credibility of a confession, considering the fact that the contents of the confession statement per se are objectively rational, what is the motive or reason of the confession, what is the motive or reason of the confession, what is the circumstance leading up to the confession, and what is not contrary or contradictory to the confession among the circumstantial evidence other than the confession, the determination should be made as to whether the confession in the court of first instance has a situation where there is a reasonable doubt about the grounds stipulated in Article 309 of the Criminal Procedure Act, or the motive

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do4091, Sept. 28, 2001). The record reveals.