All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the amount of additional collection against Defendant C in the judgment of the court of first instance is “90,861.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of sentencing) (related to the crime No. 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance) was aware of the facts, and upon the AA’s request, the Defendant stored the goods in the warehouse. The Defendant sent the goods to the warehouse according to his/her instructions, and did not know that the goods were closely imported.

Therefore, there is no fact that the Defendant conspiredd with E, etc. to import a middle-sea melting melting product.

See The first sentence of sentencing (one year of imprisonment, and additional collection: 280,923,910) is too unreasonable.

B. The judgment of the first instance on the legal principles as to Defendant C (misunderstanding of the legal principles as to collection and sentencing) was erroneous in the calculation of the amount of additional collection against the Defendant, based on the “Market Price Schedule” with respect to the domestic content of this case, and ordered the additional collection of KRW 90,861,400,000, considering that the domestic wholesale price of the domestic content of the same weight is approximately KRW 57,750,00,000, the amount of additional collection pursuant to “the Market Price Schedule” is unlawful.

Shebbly Sentencing 1 Deliberation type (hereinafter 10 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. (i) As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant asserted the same purport in the first instance trial, but the first instance court found the Defendant guilty of all the charges on the Defendant, taking into account the evidence duly adopted and examined, and rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the above grounds that the Defendant’s above assertion on the grounds that it was “judgment on the Defendant A and the defense counsel’s assertion.”

C. Examining the above facts in comparison with the record and judgment of the first instance court, the Defendant conspired with E, etc. to keep the middle Korean melt.

We affirm and accept the decision of the first deliberation as just, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts affecting the decision.

Fidelityly, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. Defendant C’s.