The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

Defendant 2 years of imprisonment and fine of KRW 350,500,000.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the defendant's assertion of unreasonable sentencing) is excessively unreasonable that the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (the imprisonment of two years, the fine of 350 million won and the penalty of 2.5 billion won and the penalty of 2.5 billion won) is too unreasonable.

[Defendant’s defense counsel made a statement of grounds of appeal on May 21, 201, on the second day of the trial of the court of appeal, the Defendant’s defense counsel also considered “fact-finding” other than the original statement of grounds of appeal as grounds of appeal. However, the purport of the argument is that the Defendant was merely an employee temporarily rather than a “general transport order” of the gold tamp import organization. The Defendant himself also made a statement to the same effect on the second day of the trial of the court of appeal. Accordingly, it is understood that the lower court erroneously recognized the facts pertaining to the amount of punishment. On the second day of the trial of the court of appeal on May 21, 2019, the defense counsel stated that the aforementioned argument of mistake of facts was withdrawn and that the Defendant was not a general

The lower court recognized the Defendant’s violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes Act”) (customs duty) and the crime of violation of the Customs Act.

Furthermore, the lower court deemed that a number of acts constituting a crime in violation of the Customs Act is in a substantive concurrent relationship as provided in the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

The lower court selected each of the above crimes of violating the Customs Duties Act.

The judgment below

Application of Statutes

A. The part of “Defendant A” of “1. The pertinent statutory provisions and the choice of punishment for the crime of 2.1” in the column includes the phrase “Defendant A” under Article 269(2)1 of the respective Customs Act (the number of gold bars from August 21, 2018 to October 13, 2018, and each of the imprisonment options).

In light of the form of the expression, the lower court seems to have judged that such multiple crimes were in the relation of substantive concurrent crimes as separate crimes.

This Court also commits such crimes.