Defendant

B shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

Defendant

B If the above fine is not paid, 100,000 won.

Defendant B is the actual employee of Defendant B, and F is the actual operator of G and H engaged in sales business of importing and selling civilian fish.

Defendant

B With F, in order to avoid customs duties by issuing Shos operated by Shos, Shos, who stay in Taiwan, red bean, and supply private goods, and submitting them to the customs office on September 16, 2013. On September 16, 2013, the import declaration was filed by Li-si Customs Office located in Pyeongtaek-si, China, UUJN MIN MINTRT and EXXPRRRRT, among domestic water storage 6,708km imported from Shos Co., Ltd. (actual supplier I), and the actual import price was KRW 211,984,00,000, and filed a false declaration as to the causes of 88,658,306, and evaded customs duties amounting to KRW 325,394,397,930,930.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Details of G revenues;

1. Data proving that the business entity has entrusted the settlement of accounts for domestic residents in China (i.e., the person who has conducted the settlement of accounts on September 16, 2013);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the content of e-mail recorded in the actual price as a domestic civil good among G imports (i.e., September 13, 2013)

1. Article 270 (1) 1 of the Customs Act and Article 30 of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The portion not guilty under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (the Defendants and the part imported from the Morocco) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The summary of the facts charged is Defendant A is the actual operator of Company E, Defendant B is the actual employee of Company E, and F is the actual operator of G and H engaged in sales business of importing and selling civilian fish.

F was aware of the actual price in order to avoid the customs burden in importing Morocco Co., Ltd. through E, the F requested the Defendant B to do so. Defendant A, who supplied the Morocco at the site of Morocco, supplied the Morocco with the Moroc language and delivered the Moroc license at the F’s request, and Defendant A was above.