The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant only sought to bring a brine tree, which was not the seeds themselves, into the brine seeds.

The Defendant was fully aware that importing the walp seeds itself was an unlawful act, and there is no reason to believe that the Defendant committed the same act as the facts charged in the instant case.

Unlike the defendant, B, who was well aware that there was no problem about the head of the family, has brought the head of the family who was not arbitrarily released without the name of the other defendant.

B. The court below found the Defendant guilty of all the charges of this case on the basis of the testimony unfavorable to the Defendant, among the testimony which is based on inadmissible evidence or which is likely to be interpreted without any specific evidence, as follows. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

1) The B’s investigation agency and the court below’s legal statement that correspond to each of the facts charged in the instant case are not reliable as a false statement to avoid their responsibility. 2) N’s police statement was conducted without interpretation for a foreigner who is not familiar with the Korean language, not only from the investigation conducted without interpretation, but also from the court of the court below that made the original statement by the original person’s statement in the

3) An investigator G’s statement to the effect that “the Defendant stated that he was sealed from N,” includes not only the full text of the statement but also the fact that N, a person making the original statement, denies the content in the court below’s decision. 4) The statement made by the J’s staff member in the OF corporation who works together with the Defendant, is insufficient to be evidence of conviction as to the situation after he was brought into Korea, and the statement made by K’s director in the same corporation includes the statement that “the Defendant attempted to cause the Defendant to go out of China,” and rather, the statement made by K’s director in the same corporation includes the statement made by the Defendant.”