The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

No. 5.349 kilograms of seized philophones No. 1.

1. Summary of the Prosecutor’s Grounds for Appeal: In full view of the background leading up to the arrest of the Defendant by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, and the content of e-mail sent and received by the Defendant and B, at least the Defendant’s negligence on the import of the instant

Nevertheless, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the instant facts charged by misapprehending the facts or misapprehending the relevant legal doctrine.

2. Determination

A. On February 2019, the Defendant accepted the instant charges with a proposal to offer USD 1,000 ($ 11.20,000,000,000) to the Japan via Korea, in the event that the Defendant transported one of the bags for travel from “B” under the name of the first police officer, who was named as “B” in the name of the first police officer, via Korea.

On February 10, 2019, the Defendant: (a) opened a door for travel from “D” in the name-free books for delivering narcotics on his own name in front of a hotel in the U.S. C, and deposited it as air freight, after which approximately 5,279g of opphonephones were divided into six parts in total in the coffee package; (b) boarded from U.S. E on February 22, 2019 to F on February 12, 2019; and (c) arrived at the second passenger terminal of the Incheon International Airport in the Jung-gu Incheon International Airport in the Jung-gu Incheon International Airport around 271.

As a result, the Defendant imported approximately KRW 5,279g of psychotropic drugs equivalent to the market price of KRW 26,3950,000,000, in collusion with the above under-mentioned under-mentioned persons, even though they are not authorized to handle narcotics.

B. In a case where a criminal defendant denies his/her intention, which is a subjective element of a constituent element of a crime, the relevant legal doctrine is bound to prove it by means of proving indirect or circumstantial facts related to intention due to the nature of an object, and whether what constitutes an indirect or circumstantial facts related to intention ought to be reasonably determined based on normal empirical rule based on a close observation or analysis power based on the normal empirical rule.

Supreme Court Decision 88Do1523 delivered on November 22, 1988, etc.