All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and legal principles 1) Defendant C was engaged in customs clearance with the belief that Defendant C imported the atmosphere of normal strawing. Even if the content of the red strawing in the atmosphere exceeds 40%, if customs clearance exceeds about 5%, it would be beneficial if customs clearance is conducted, and even if it does not go through customs, it would be a return processing. Defendant C conspired to import the red strawing powder of B, A, and C, and strawing and strawing powder.

2) Defendant D cannot be punished as both punishment provisions unless Defendant C conspiredd to import smuggling. Even if Defendant C was found guilty, Defendant D could not have predicted the work of Defendant C in the situation where the import declaration was not made. Thus, Defendant D was not liable for violation of the duty of supervision by an employee.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the illegal Defendants (Defendant C: imprisonment with prison labor for April, a suspended sentence of one year, and Defendant D: fine of three million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination 1 on Defendant C’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine) An appellate court under the current Criminal Procedure Act is based on the inner judgment, but the so-called ex post facto core deliberation, which has a substantial part of the ex post facto core elements, and thus, the appellate court should consider the characteristics of the structure of the first instance judgment when determining the legitimacy of the judgment in the appellate court

Therefore, even though there is no new objective reason to affect the formation of a documentary evidence in the trial process, if the appellate court intends to re-examine the first decision and make a decision ex post facto, it would be remarkably unfair to maintain the judgment as it is because the first decision was clearly erroneous or the arguments leading to the acknowledgement of facts are contrary to logical and empirical rules.