Defendant

C In light of the role of the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts in the instant gold bars or the degree of profit gained therefrom, the Defendant did not commit each of the instant offenses in collusion with D, A, etc., but is merely an aiding and abetting crime. The punishment that the lower court sentenced the Defendant to the sentencing unfair is too unreasonable.

Defendant

D: The sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendant (the imprisonment of 4 years and the fine of 3,678,490,547) is too unreasonable.

Defendant

E: The sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendant (the imprisonment of three years and the fine of 1,270,568,470) is too unreasonable.

A public prosecutor: A public prosecutor: In light of the fact that the number of gold bars against Defendant E is in the form of an organization that makes it impossible to fully know the personal information among accomplices; the actual owner of gold bars is not one person; and the gold leader transferor may be a person who has received it in lieu of the owner; and there is a possibility that he/she could have received it in parallel with other persons, such as Defendant C, D, A, etc., other than the owner; each statement made by the Defendant, C, and D that correspond to the facts charged against the Defendant is sufficiently reliable; comprehensively taking into account these statements and other evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on April 4, 2015 to October 13, 2014 should be found guilty.

Judgment

Considering the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court's method of assessing the credibility of the prosecutor's appeal in accordance with the spirit of substantial direct deliberation adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act as an element of the trial-oriented principle, the first instance court's judgment is to be held.