The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,300,000.

Defendant

A The above fine shall be imposed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., both types of punishment) that the court below sentenced against the Defendants (e.g., a fine of KRW 9 million) is too unreasonable.

2. The Defendants’ evasion of customs duties of a certain amount ( approximately KRW 24 million) over a long-term period is disadvantageous to the Defendants.

However, it appears that the Defendants led to the confession of the instant crime and reflects the Defendants’ mistake in depth, the Defendants paid all customs duties evaded, and the Defendants appear to have reported the import price at low without being aware of the provisions of the Customs Act related to the transportation cost of imported goods accurately. There are circumstances that may be considered in light of the circumstances leading to the instant crime, and the facts that Defendant A was the first offender without any criminal power are favorable to the Defendants.

In addition, in full view of Defendant A’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and background of the Defendants’ crime, and circumstances before and after the crime, the lower court’s punishment is deemed to be too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the defendants' appeal is with merit, and the judgment below is again decided as follows.

[C] The summary of the facts constituting the crime and the evidence of this case against the Defendants is identical to the description of each corresponding column of the judgment below, and thus, they are cited as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

A. Defendant A1) Nos. 1 through 23 per annum of the crime sight table as indicated in the judgment of the court below: each of Articles 270(1)1 and 241(1)2 of the former Customs Act (amended by Act No. 10424, Dec. 30, 2010); 24 through 33 per annum of the crime sight table as indicated in the judgment of the court below: Article 270(1)1 and Article 241(1) of the respective Customs Act (elective of fines)

B. Defendant B1’s agricultural association corporation’s decision.