The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (fact-finding) B is a buying agent who enters North Korea and purchases goods on behalf of another person.

It is limited to cases where goods imported in North Korea are imported via simple via China, a third country.

2. In full view of the provisions of Article 2 subparag. 3 of the Inter-Korean Exchange and Cooperation Act and Article 25(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, in order to constitute “inbound and out of Korea” under Article 27(1)3 and Article 13(1) of the same Act, it should be proven that the Defendant entered into a contract for the movement of goods, etc. for exchange with North Korean counterpart, lease, loan for use, donation, use, etc., and the mere fact that the pertinent goods were not subject to import clearance is insufficient solely on the basis that the Defendant

The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant entered into a contract on the movement of goods, etc. for the purpose of exchange, lease, loan of use, donation, use, etc. with North Korean counterpart through B beyond the fact that the defendant was aware of the smuggling of B.

There is no error in the judgment of the court below that there is no proof of crime, which affected the judgment.

3. The appeal by the prosecutor of conclusion is without merit.

The dismissal under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act is dismissed.