The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and improper sentencing);

A. Although it was true that the defendant allowed C, G, etc. to illegally enter the Republic of Korea, the above act was not conducted for profit-making purposes (misunderstanding of facts). (B) Even if the defendant's act was found guilty, the sentencing of the court below (two years of imprisonment and additional collection) is unfair because it was excessively unreasonable (unfair sentencing). 2.

A. Determination as to the assertion of mistake of fact 1) “Profit-making purpose” under Article 93-2 subparag. 2 subparag. 1 of the Immigration Control Act refers to the intention to pursue the intention or profit to obtain property benefits in specific violations as prescribed by the above Act, and this refers to the purpose of obtaining economic benefits widely, and the purpose of profit-making is recognized in cases of profits to be indirectly obtained through the act of violation, not directly paid for the act of violation, such as illegal entry.

2) Based on these legal principles, the following additional circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the first instance court’s duly adopted and investigated evidence were met with respect to the instant case, i.e., the Defendant received money from C, G, etc., and the Defendant did not have agreed to explain or settle down the cost necessary to install equipment, etc. necessary for smuggling entry. ② The Defendant and B purchased rubber boats with the money received from C, G, etc., and divided the remaining money into two parts; ③ the Defendant offered a proposal for defective entry as a smuggling, and the Defendant again intended to use the rubber boats used for the instant crime into the Republic of Korea. In full view of the following circumstances, the Defendant illegally entered the Republic of Korea for profit-making purposes, such as the criminal facts stated in the lower judgment.