The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact-misunderstanding and misapprehension of the legal principles, a customs officer’s opening of an international postal item as indicated in paragraph (2) of the facts constituting an offense in the lower judgment (hereinafter “instant postal item”) on March 14, 2017 and inspected the content thereof (Evidence 1 through 4) constitutes not an administrative investigation conducted as a person in charge of customs clearance but a seizure, which is a criminal investigation conducted by a special judicial police officer.

In addition, under the direction of one prosecutor, the control delivery for the instant postal items will be carried out.

Even after the report, the mail of this case was actually continuously occupied and seized as a forced investigator.

Nevertheless, the above seizure is unlawful since there was no prior or ex-post warrant issued, and thereafter, the prosecution investigator seized the mail of this case at the time of urgent arrest of the defendant on March 20, 2017 and issued an ex-post warrant.

However, the illegality of the above customs officer's seizure does not disappear.

In addition, it cannot be confirmed whether the above ex post facto warrant was requested within 48 hours from the time when the defendant was urgently arrested, and it cannot be recognized that the seizure of the above prosecutorial investigator is lawful.

Therefore, the content contained in the instant postal item (Evidence Nos. 1 through 4) and the evidence collected by the investigative agency based on this is inadmissible as evidence illegally collected.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (a punishment of imprisonment of three years, a suspended sentence of five years, community service and order to attend a lecture, confiscation and collection) is too unreasonable.

2. This part of the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is a new assertion in the written argument on the supplementary appeal filed on August 28, 2017, which was subsequent to the lapse of the period for filing the appeal, and it cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal. Moreover, even if examining ex officio, the above assertion by the Defendant is without merit as follows.

(a) opening of items in the relevant legal principles and procedures for customs clearance of goods;