The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is that H is merely an invoice for transport, and thus, it shall not be easily rejected the credibility of the statement made by the informant on the ground that H was unable to accurately memory the quantity of the gold leader delivered.

In particular, in light of the fact that the location of K’s station for the dispatch of a one-time border that H met with K is consistent with that of H’s point at which H met, credibility exists in the statement of H.

The court below rejected the credibility of H’s statement on a different premise from this case’s facts charged and acquitted the Defendant of this case’s facts charged.

2. The following circumstances revealed by the records of this case in detail by the court below, i.e., (i) “K-I and J-J-exed imported gold bars on January 27, 2016 and March 4, 2016,” which were pronounced not guilty on the ground that there was no proof of crime, the Incheon District Court’s 2016 High Court case and 858 case were dismissed the prosecutor’s appeal on May 30, 2018, and confirmed around that time; (ii) the H’s statement on L was indicated as “a business partnership with which it was known about 10 years,” and “L was sent to China-U-U-U-U-U-U-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S.