The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Regarding the violation of the Act on the Control of Smuggling, there was no intention to commit smuggling to G at the time of boarding a vessel for smuggling because the Defendant independently prepared for smuggling without regard to G.

Therefore, G does not constitute a crime of violation of Article 3(1) of the former Stows Control Act (amended by Act No. 11807, May 22, 2013; hereinafter “former Stows Control Act”) against G, and accordingly, the Defendant, who is a final offender, is not subject to the crime of violation of Article 4(1) of the former Stows Control Act.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby finding the guilty of this part of the facts charged.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

가. 사실오인 주장에 대한 판단 원심이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들, 특히 피고인의 원심법정에서의 자백 진술(공판기록 78, 90면), G이 자신에 대한 밀항단속법위반 등 사건에서 한 검찰에서의 진술(증거기록 2권 1753∽1756, 1762, 1802면), 수사보고(G 지갑 속 의심 메모지 발견, 증거기록 1445∽1447면), G에 대하여 밀항단속법위반죄로 유죄판결이 선고되고 확정되었는바 그 판결문(증거기록 1권 968∽1228면)에 의하면, G이 밀항의 고의로 이 사건 밀항용 선박에 승선한 사실이 넉넉히 인정된다.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake cannot be accepted.

B. In light of the motive for the instant crime, in which a savings bank, which has become a major social issue in the determination of unfair sentencing, attempted to escape from G to a foreign country through the method of smuggling, the crime’s nature is grave, the systematic and planned smuggling and the criminal escape is not sufficient, and the method of the crime’s acceptance is also not good, and even if it is difficult to accept, it appears to have a proper attitude to supplement and reflect the defense that is difficult to accept.