The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) C has the right to take measures against the clothing 32,00 punishment against the defendant, and the above clothing was cancelled as stated in the facts charged on the premise that C may take over the above clothing without any separate customs clearance costs under the responsibility of the defendant. However, the court below found C not guilty of the facts charged in this case on the ground that C was entrusted with the disposition of the above clothing at the time of the provisional attachment cancellation, and that it was possible to take over the clothing upon the burden of customs clearance costs, and that it was possible to take over the clothing at the time of

2. In addition to the circumstances of the court below's detailed determination, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below (i.e., the defendant borrowed money from C and F and purchased 302,00 punishment of this Ireland by purchasing it, and then exported it, but as it was not possible for the defendant to bring it into Korea due to the failure to pay customs clearance expenses for the above clothing, the defendant transferred the above clothing to C and F to the creditor of C and F to pay the borrowed money to C and F by transferring the above clothing, and (ii) the part of the clothing underwriter's transfer prepared between the defendant and C to compensate for the shortfall's shortage.

In light of the fact that C and F brought the clothing into Korea by bearing their respective customs clearance costs, C and F appear to have been assigned under the condition that C and F would have been subject to prior liability for the customs clearance costs of the clothing, and C and F, even though the Defendant transferred 32,00 penalties to her own, she had deceiving F by double transfer.

However, according to the letter of acceptance of the goods in Ireland on June 28, 2010, C seems to have been aware that at the time of transfer of the 32,000 punishment for clothing, the Defendant had already been aware of the fact that the Defendant had already delegated F to F the sale of the above garment (the 3rd page 78 pages of the investigation record), and C.