(A) On No. 1:

Examining the purport or record that there was no perception of illegality in the first and second so-called "the defendant's decision," the defendant is considered to be a person who imports raw materials from a foreign country and is well aware of the legal procedure on imports as much as the person who carries on the manufacturing of light vessels as he carries on the manufacturing of light vessels, and therefore, the decision of the court below that the decision of the court below that recognized the illegality in the so-called case cannot be said to be illegal

(B) As to Section 2:

The argument of unfair sentencing cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal in this case, and therefore, the argument is also groundless.

(2) We examine the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 of the Defense Counsel Kim Dong-ho.

Examining the record of the lower judgment, the lower court acknowledged the Defendant’s act of removing 124 tons of the steel steel of this case, which was originally stored with the permission of the customs collector, from the 337 tons, to the Defendant’s factory establishment without the permission of the customs collector, and the act of transferring it to the Defendant’s factory establishment, as an act of an unauthorized storage, and determined the rate of 39 tons of the 124 tons of the 124 tons of the 124 tons of the

In addition, the above measures of the court below are just and acceptable.

(1) Therefore, it cannot be said that the court below's measures and devices were examined without separate evidence, or that there was a false error in applying the interpretation and application of the Customs Act to it. (2) The court below held that 39 tons of this case were taken from the bonded area under Article 2 of the Customs Act because they were treated by heating and processing at an unauthorized storage site as stated in the above explanation, and it is not deemed to be taken as a seal from the bonded area (if it was deducted from the permitted storage site, it shall be taken as a seal from the bonded area) because it was not passed through the bonded area, and since there was a rate of deeming that the court below did not go through the bonded area, it is difficult to find that there was a misapprehension of the legal principles as to the "import" under Article 2 of the Customs Act, and (3) the defendant's present case did not constitute a case where the head of the customs office's approval was not granted for the release of the goods under Article 143 of the Customs Act, but it cannot be viewed as an unlawful removal of the goods without permission.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ahn Byung-soo (Presiding Justice)