The judgment below

Among them, the part of confiscation and collection against Defendant A, and the part of collection against Defendant B and C shall be reversed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. Defendant A and B1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles ① The court below calculated a surcharge based on the domestic wholesale price sold by the Defendants to consumers. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on additional collection and calculation of an amount equivalent to the domestic wholesale price as provided in the Customs Duties Act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. ② 2,034 (16 of them were seized by the investigative agency)

The 466 of the 466 of the 466 of the 466 of the 466s of the 466s of the 1,372s of the 1,372s of the 2nds of the 1,372s of the 2nds of the 1,372s of the 2nds of the defendant Eul's custody and the 3nds of the 1,372s of the 3nds of the 3nds of the 3nds of the 3nds of the 1sts of the 3nds of the 3nds of the 1sts of the 1sts of the 3nds of the 1sts of the 1sts of the 2nds of the 2nds of the 2nds of the 2nds of the 3nds of the 3nds of the 2nds

B. Defendant C1 mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles ① The owner of the instant perennial plant was merely the owner of the instant perennial plant B, and the Defendant merely purchased the instant perennial plant imported from B, and the Defendant did not directly or in collusion with B, import the instant perennial plant.

In addition, unlike the first and second receipt acts, the third receipt act was merely a "storage" for B, not a "purchase" from B, and the living condition of the instant multi-land plants was good and purchased from B while keeping the instant multi-land plants, and eventually, B bears the duty to file an import declaration as the owner.

The Defendant had not conspiredd with B with regard to the import of the instant perennial plants, and with regard to the instant perennial plants from B.