On May 12, 2017, around 08:20 on May 12, 2017, the Defendant boarded 20 ambling from the international port of Cheongdo-ro, China, Cheongdo-ro, in a state where 20 amblings, containing 75.61 g ambrophones, are placed in the Defendant’s official approval color back, and entered the Incheon International Airport of the Republic of Korea around 10:35 on the same day.

Accordingly, the defendant imported 22,683,00 won in Chinese market from China to 75.61g of penphones.

2. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the assertion was that the Defendant received two copies of the land-to-land debrising upon the request of Do-to-land D and entered the Republic of Korea, but was unaware of the fact that the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea. However, the Defendant did not know that there was a philopon in the land-to-land debrising. Therefore, the Defendant did not have intention to import philopon

B. (1) In a criminal trial, the determination of facts constituting a crime ought to be based on strict evidence of probative value, which leads to a judge to have a reasonable doubt. Therefore, in a case where the prosecutor’s certification was not sufficiently enough to reach the extent that such conviction would lead to such conviction, the determination should be made in the interest of the defendant even if there is suspicion of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense contradictory or uncomfortable dismissal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do231, Jun. 28, 2012). Then, the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do231, Jun. 26, 2017).