A. In full view of the text of the order (ODRFR or INVICE) and the details of foreign currency transfers, the Defendant’s smuggling was fully recognized.

Therefore, it is erroneous for not guilty on the grounds that there is no evidence to prove this part of the facts charged.

B. Undue sentencing (with regard to the guilty portion), the first deliberation penalty (amounting to eight million won) is too uneased and unfair.

2. Determination:

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the following circumstances were proven without any reasonable doubt as to the Defendant’s actual income as stated in this part of the facts charged.

The first decision of not guilty of this part of the facts charged is just, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion of mistake is without merit.

(1) A customs officer H of the Seoul Customs Investigation Office, who prepared a “information analysis report” on the Defendant’s instant crime, stated that the Defendant’s instant crime was committed as a witness at the first instance trial and that “it is difficult to find out what kind of goods belongs to a letter letter box” with respect to the contents of the “information analysis report” as a witness, and that it does not confirm the content of the report, and that there is a suspicion of suspicion.”

Belgium, the Defendant stated that, even at the time of the investigation by customs office, the Defendant was unable to pay the price of the goods to the Customer and that there was no actual delivery of a considerable number of the goods listed in the order, but once the customs office handles the goods as a package, and if there was any detention after handling the goods in the order, the Defendant thereafter appealed from the prosecution.