The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The motion for adjudication on the constitutionality of the instant case is dismissed.

1. Summary of and judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. The summary of the grounds for appeal 1) Inasmuch as the Defendant, as a simple transport of the crime of smuggling in this case, does not fall under the owner of the gold bullion, and does not possess the unclaimed gold bullion as at the present time, the Defendant does not additionally collect the amount equivalent to the cost of the gold bullion imported from the Defendant. Nevertheless, the lower court ordering an additional collection of the amount equivalent to the cost of the gold bullion imported, which erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The sentence imposed by the lower court of unfair sentencing (a fine of eight months, suspension of execution, two years, forfeiture of No. 1, 651, 519,00 won) is too unreasonable.

B. Determination 1) As to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles, in a case where multiple persons conspired to import goods, and one person of an offender owns or possesses the goods, if the offender owns or possesses the goods, the entire amount equivalent to the domestic wholesale price at the time of the offense may be collected from all of the offender regardless of whether the goods are owned or currently possessed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8401, Dec. 28, 2007). Therefore, the judgment of the court below that additionally collected the amount equivalent to the domestic wholesale price of the gold bar that the Defendant was sealed by the Defendant from the Defendant is just and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles. This part of the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit. The Defendant’s assertion of this part of this case is without merit, and social harm is a crime that disturbs sound distribution order, and there is considerable social harm, and the Defendant committed an offense over 13 times as a smuggling import volume, and there is no reason for the court below’s decision that the Defendant’s punishment is too unjustifiable.

C. Conclusion.