All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Fraudulent part related to the supply of alternative training equipment

A. Regarding the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles as to the judgment of legal personality of the importing entity of parts and each related company, the lower court determined that P operated L (hereinafter “L”), N, and V (hereinafter “V”) through Defendant A, D, etc., and L and V are the same company, not a separate legal entity, as long as L and V were to supply the training equipment of this case at least, and even if not, the importing entity of light source and reduced parts necessary for the manufacture of the training equipment of this case is limited, and even if part of V and reduced half-finished products were assembled, such process is merely processed by entrustment of L imported parts, and it cannot be recognized that half-finished products were sold after importing and processing parts in V.

Furthermore, in light of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that each of the subdivisional distribution enterprises is not a transactional relationship between the independent enterprises pursuing operating profits for each individual’s account, and each of the subdivisional distribution enterprises is only an independent enterprise in the supply of nuclear power training equipment, but is the same as L, and even if not, the importing entity of parts, such as light source and reduction source necessary for the manufacture of nuclear power training equipment, is L not a V, and each of the subdivisional distribution enterprises is not a complete product after purchasing and processing parts, such as light source and reduction source, etc., from V, and then selling them as a finished product, but only for the purpose of receiving L’s entrustment and paying for nuclear processing costs.

The judgment of the court below.