The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years and by a fine not exceeding 3,028,186,985 won.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (related to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) did not know that the Defendant, upon F’s request, disposed of gold bullion, and that the gold bullion was imported as a smuggling at the time of the disposition. The Defendant did not have any intention or aiding and abetting any principal offender with respect to the import of gold bullion.

In addition, the defendant's disposal of the gold bullion and delivery of the disposal price to F is after the completion of the crime of smuggling import, and as a result, it was not easy to dispose of the gold bullion, but it was not easy to facilitate the smuggling import. Thus, it cannot be punished as aiding and abetting the crime of smuggling import.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the defendant disposed of the gold ingot while recognizing the fact of the smuggling import.

Based on the judgment of the court below, the defendant was recognized as aiding and abetting the crime of smuggling, and the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (a fine of two years, a fine of five hundred,093,492 won, additional collection of KRW 3,312,408,00) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles [related to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes] The Defendant exchanged closely with F before and after the crime of smuggling import. The Defendant had already formulated a crime plan before the commencement of the crime of smuggling import, and had an implied, orderly, and indirect communication with the rest of the common principals of the crime at the same time.

must be viewed.

In addition, the role of the defendant's disposal of smuggling is a very important part of the crime of smuggling.

In light of these circumstances, although the defendant should be recognized as a joint principal offender for the crime of smuggling, the court below recognized the defendant as a principal offender for the crime of smuggling only.