All appeals filed by the Defendants and by the Prosecutor against Defendant A are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the Defendants 1 and 6(3) proviso of the Enforcement Decree of the Foreign Trade Act and the notice on the operation of the country of origin system, which applies in accordance with the mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, and the delegation of Article 33(1) and (2) of the Foreign Trade Act and the proviso of Article 56(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, where the country of origin of golf loans and the country of origin of Shad, Shaft, the name of the country of Hed, Saft, and the name of the country in the Assord in the Assord, are attached to the present goods, or the country in which the country in which the golf-backed assembly process was performed is marked as the name of the country in which the country in which the golf-backed goods was conducted was conducted, and thus, the country of origin was marked as the name of the country in which it was manufactured in China, and the origin was not falsely marked, even if the above golf-backed goods were assembled into China.

Even if the Defendants did not know such fact, they did not have the intention to commit the crime.

2) Improper sentencing of the lower court (Defendant A: imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months, suspended execution for 2 years, Defendant B: fine for 7 million won) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor (Defendant A)’s sentence is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the Defendants’ assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles, the following circumstances are acknowledged: (i) the E company’s employee claiming that the Defendants were a company that assembled golf loans in Japan asked the Defendant on November 27, 2014 that the employee in charge of the Defendant’s side asked the Defendant to “if there is no other additional work in the Hd, there is no other work in the Hd, and the staff in charge of the Defendant requested the removal of the double-Korean CD attached to the Hd”; and (ii) around July 23, 2015, the employee in charge of the Defendant instructed the E company to remove the country of origin indicated as China in Japan and re-exploded it in Japan, but failed to do so.