All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The gist of grounds for appeal (violation of Acts and subordinate statutes, misunderstandings about facts and improper sentencing);

A. A certificate of violating laws and regulations producers shall be issued by issuing the pertinent documents on which the company’s official seal is affixed from the producer of the pertinent goods and submitted to the China International Trade Promotion Committee, and the Defendants were not aware of the forgery of the pertinent certificate.

Nevertheless, the first instance court violated Article 361-5 No. 11 of the Criminal Procedure Act by failing to explain the above argument.

B. In fact, the Defendants did not know the fact that the producer’s evidentiary document was forged, but reported customs duties based on the document issued by the Chinese exporter. Thus, the Defendants did not have the intent to commit a crime.

Nevertheless, the first instance court convicted all the Defendants, thereby misunderstanding facts, and misunderstanding the judgment, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(c)

Each punishment sentenced by the first instance court (the fines of 26,400,000 won by each of the Defendants) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a criminal trial for a judgment on a violation of Acts and subordinate statutes, a judgment of conviction is sufficient to clearly state the facts that the judgment is a criminal offense, the summary of evidence, and the application of the Acts and subordinate statutes (Article 323(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act). Thus, the first instance court did not render a separate judgment on the aforementioned arguments of the Defendants as separate items.

However, such circumstance alone cannot be deemed unlawful.

Therefore, Defendants’ above violation of law is without merit.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court on the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendants were a producer, not the actual producer, using forged evidence to obtain a low-rate rate of anti-dumping duty while importing the pro rata products in China.