The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (an amount of KRW 5 million, KRW 79,488,090) is too unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). It is reasonable to take into account the following factors: (a) the Defendant is recognized as committing a crime; (b) there is no record of being punished in excess of the same kind of power and fine; (c) the amount of gains actually accrued to the Defendant due to the instant crime; (d) the Defendant appears to be small in the amount of gains actually accrued to the Defendant; and (e)

However, the crime of this case is an unfavorable circumstance in light of the legislative intent of the Customs Act that attempts to contribute to the development of the national economy by ensuring the proper imposition, collection, and customs clearance of customs duties and securing customs revenues, and the fact that the market price of the offense is not so much and that the degree of defendant's participation is not less easily.

The court below seems to have determined the punishment by taking the above circumstances into consideration equally, and there is no new change in circumstances that could change the punishment of the court below in the first instance.

In addition, in full view of all other circumstances, including the Defendant’s criminal history, age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., and the sentencing conditions indicated in the previous theories, even if considering the background of the instant case alleged in the trial and the normal data additionally submitted, the lower court’s punishment is excessively heavy, beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

does not appear.

The defendant's argument of sentencing is not accepted.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is groundless.