2. The Defendant: (a) took part in the crime of this case as the first offender; (b) the Defendant took part in the transportation of the gold bullion revenues only; (c) the Defendant took part in the systematic and planned crime of smuggling import that conceals the gold bullion in the resistance; (d) the market price of the gold leader is more than 360 million won and the quality of the crime is not good; and (e) there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that may be newly considered after the sentence of the lower judgment.

In addition, in full view of the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, economic condition, motive and background of the instant crime, means and methods of the instant crime, the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., all of the sentencing conditions as shown in the pleadings, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

[Attachment, the Defendant asserts that collecting KRW 369,20,00 even though the criminal proceeds derived from the Defendant’s participation in the instant crime was merely KRW 3,200,00,000, in particular, due to the fact that it is too unreasonable, and thus, as long as it is the so-called essential confiscation or additional collection clause, the court must order confiscation or additional collection under the Customs Act (see Article 282). Unlike the additional collection under the General Criminal Act, the court must order confiscation or additional collection as long as it has a punitive nature, and if multiple persons conspired to evade customs duties, arrange and transport customs duties, or acquire customs duties, if one person owns or occupies the goods, the amount equivalent to the total amount of the domestic wholesale price at the time of the offense may be collected from all offenders, regardless of whether the goods are owned or possessed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Do2807, Jun. 25, 2009; 2006Do4386, Apr. 28, 20016).