The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for not more than ten months and two years of suspended execution, community service, and additional collection for 80 hours and 914,320,000) are too unreasonable.

2. The Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflected his mistake.

The profits actually acquired by the defendant with simple transportation is not significant compared to the total amount of crime.

Defendant has no record of punishment for the same kind of crime.

However, the crime of this case is that the defendant imported gold bars several times with his accomplices, and such smuggling import act is highly likely to be criticized against the legislative intent of the Customs Act intended to contribute to the development of the national economy by ensuring the imposition and collection of customs duties and customs clearance of imported and exported goods, and securing the import of customs duties. The amount of gold bars imported by the defendant reaches 20 km in total, and the defendant's act of transporting gold bars was the core and indispensable element of the crime of smuggling import. Although the defendant claims that the amount of additional collection is excessive, the additional collection under the Customs Act is deemed to be excessive, unlike the additional collection under the general criminal law, since many persons conspired to evade customs duties, arrange for the transportation of customs collection, and take possession of the goods, if one of the offenders owns or occupies the goods, it may be collected from all of the domestic wholesale price at the time of possession or possession of the goods, regardless of whether the goods are owned or possessed by the offender, and if possible, it may be collected at the time of 20 20 m2.