A. Fact-finding misunderstanding Co., Ltd. L, the representative director of which L, N (in-house director of K), andO (the director of T, the N's form and distribution raw material company) requested the defendant to forge "V's raw material import agency contract" and "use letter" for the purpose of reducing customs duties. Since K, the representative director of L, knew that the above document was forged, it is not guilty of exercising the above investigation document with the knowledge of the fact that the document was forged.

2. The lower court, based on the evidence duly examined and adopted by the lower court, took the Defendant’s liability to N, namely, the Defendant was obligated to repay the obligation with the profits earned by mediating the transaction with G. On February 3, 2014, the Defendant sent information, such as the market price of the goods from G to LN, etc. and proposed the transaction. Accordingly, K, as the Defendant’s proposal, intended to purchase the goods from G, cleared the goods for five exhausts and supplied it to G for five exhausts. On May 2, 2014, G was cleared through feed and sold to other places, and then imported 200 tons in advance, and L et al. was issued “the import contract for five exhausts' raw materials” in the name of G through the Defendant on May 9, 2014 and “the original plan for use”.

There is no knowledge that the 200 tons are more than 200 tons, and that if K knew of the fact that the above contract was false, it would have not been additionally imported, it would have been used as a fixed contract under transaction practice, and that the import agency contract was used as a fixed contract, and that K’s representative director L did not know that it was a witness of the court below that “the document in this case was not written by the Defendant and it was not an import agency for G.”

“The fact that it stated as “,” L and its partner, and the fact that it dealt with specific duties.

N is only 2% of the duty exempted as a witness in the trial.