The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years and fine for 90,846,184,00 won.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. On August 29, 2018, the summary of the reasons for appeal (unfair sentencing) defense counsel argued that ① the application of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes should be excluded since each of the crimes of this case is concurrent crimes, not only one crime but also concurrent crimes. ② The defendant is a person who simply carries out transportation and management, and thus, the collection should be excluded from the whole value of the crime. However, this is not a legitimate appeal as a subsequent argument after the deadline for submission of the reasons for appeal, and even after ex officio examination, the court below applied the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes only if the cost of the gold bar imported in the same day is more than 50 million or more than 200 million won, and ② the collection under the Customs Act has the character of disciplinary punishment different from the collection under the General Criminal Act, and there is no error of law by a defense counsel of 30.5 billion won or more from the judgment of the court below, and thus, it cannot be determined that there is no error of law as to 350.48.

The punishment sentenced by the court below (the imprisonment of five years and the fine of 182,030,368,000 won, the additional collection of 125,719,446,60 won) is too unreasonable.

2. The instant facts charged are deemed as concurrent crimes, and in the event the cost of the gold bullion imported on the same day is at least KRW 500 million or at least KRW 200 million, Article 6(2)1 or 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes”) applied, and the lower court also determined on the same basis.

However, there is a problem.