All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act with respect to Defendant A’s grounds of appeal, an appeal may be filed on the ground that the lower court’s judgment erred by grave mistake of facts, thereby affecting the judgment.

Therefore, in this case where a more minor sentence is imposed on Defendant A, the argument to the effect that the court below's judgment on the selection of evidence and probative value or its factual basis is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant B and D Korea, the lower court found Defendant B guilty of each of the instant facts charged against Defendant B and D Korea, on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, and ordered Defendant B to additionally collect KRW 5,716,954,275 from Defendant A and D Korea jointly with Defendant A and to additionally collect KRW 5,010,717,975 from Defendant D Co., Ltd. 5,716,954,275.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal doctrine on smuggling under Article 269(3) of the Customs Act and confiscation and collection under Article 282

3. As to the Defendant C’s grounds of appeal, Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act affected the judgment of the lower court on the grounds that the lower court rendered a sentence of death or imprisonment with or without labor for an indefinite term or for not less than ten years.

An appeal may be filed on the ground that there exists a significant reason to recognize the amount of punishment or that the amount of punishment is extremely unfair.

Therefore, in this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against Defendant C, the judgment of the court below on the selection of evidence and its probative value is based on the misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.