The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant actually engaged in transportation to Korea by smuggling, but the Defendant did not return it to China due to the fact that he did not receive transportation fees, and the Defendant did not intend to obtain money from C as stated in the facts charged in this case.

2. Determination

A. On February 3, 2012, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant, even though having no intention or ability to import the classical machine, acquired 30,00 won in total under the name of the import price of the classical machine, and acquired 30,000 won from the victim C to February 24, 2012, to the effect that “a request for advance payment is made because he/she would import 1.1 tons of the domestic high classical machine in Korea” from the E-cafeteria located in Busan East-gu, Busan, the Defendant acquired 3,00 won from the victim around that time to February 24, 2012.

B. The summary of the lower court’s judgment found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by comprehensively taking account of each of the evidence in its judgment and determined as follows in the “judgment on the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion

The defendant and his defense counsel received KRW 30,000,00 from C as the advance payment of the advanced payment, but the defendant alleged that he did not have any intention to obtain fraud, so the following facts and circumstances can be acknowledged according to each evidence of the ruling.

① H does not put the Defendant a senior flag onto Korea, but only entrusts the transportation to Korea. The transportation cost was KRW 40,000 per kilogram, and the Defendant received KRW 15,00,000 from the Defendant in preparation for the harsh transportation.

② With regard to the circumstances that the Defendant came to know, G revealed that he had been aware of about five years prior to the police investigation process. However, during the prosecutor’s investigation process, G made a statement that he was aware that he was aware of the Defendant’s sexual intercourse with his name and became aware of the Defendant at this time.

In addition, around February 2012, the defendant came from G.