The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

However, for a period of four years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant was unaware of the fact that the articles, which were incurred in a virtual psychotropic drug, are psychotropic drugs, such as Melopon (one philopon; hereinafter “philopon”).

The defendant was proposed to transport chemical substances from C, and only he was aware that the product was fire chemical substances and brought to Korea.

However, since the introduction of such chemical substances has been perceived as illegal, it has been widely transported.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the lower court determined as follows.

The following circumstances are acknowledged according to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below.

① In view of the fact that the circumstances initially known to the Defendant with C are considerably exceptional, and that the amount of the promise received is a large amount of USD 10 million, the Defendant was able to think that the transport of the goods proposed by C was illegal.

② The Defendant seems to have been making considerable doubt as to C’s proposal, such as repeatedly asking C whether the washing of USD 1 is possible as a regular statement.

③ The Defendant deemed that the handbags of a travel room are well concealed with female clothes, etc., and that the items contained in the handbag were illegal.

④ At the time when the Defendant was discovered in the customs office, the customs official did not mention that the goods from handbag from the Defendant were narcotics, but the Defendant asked whether they were narcotics or not, and repeatedly asked the Defendant as to whether they were narcotics or not.

According to this, the defendant was aware that the goods transported by himself at the time of committing the crime, or at least dolusently imported them with the recognition and acceptance of it.

The circumstances stated by the court below are as follows.