The judgment below

Of the judgment below against the defendant, the statement Nos. 1 to 5, 23 through 29 are listed on the list of crimes in the annexed sheet of the court below.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles 1) Co-defendant G, H, and Co-defendant B (hereinafter “B”) indicated in the facts charged of this case

(2) As to the violation of each Customs Act set forth in the table of crime (hereinafter “crime list”) Nos. 6 through 10, each of which is set forth in the attached Table of the lower judgment (hereinafter “crime list”), as a company established by I, not the Defendant, but the Defendant, under the direction of I, filed an import declaration or paid the price in the name of the above company. As such, the Defendant was merely a co-principal who committed a crime in collusion with I, or a aiding and abetting that facilitates the commission of the crime.

3) As to the violation of each Customs Act as stated in the list of crimes Nos. 25 to 27, the judgment below is Co-defendant B Co-defendant B (hereinafter “B”).

Since an import declaration was filed in the name of the Defendant, the Defendant does not constitute a crime of violating the Customs Act. B) The sentencing of the lower court on the grounds of unfair sentencing (the sentencing of each of the offenses listed above 6 to 22 items on the list of crimes committed on the basis of imprisonment for 4 months and suspension of execution, fines of 17 million won per annum, and fines of 1 to 5 and 23 through 29 items on each of the offenses committed on the list of crimes committed on the basis of imprisonment for 8 months and fines of 12 million won per annum.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant, as to the first argument of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, led to the first argument by the first customs office to the fourth trial day of the original trial, led to the confession of all of the facts charged in this case as if he voluntarily evaded customs duties as the representative who actually operated G, H, and B from the date he was investigated by the first customs office to the fourth trial day of the original trial. However, at the fifth trial day of the original trial, the said company’s substantial representative is I, and he was engaged in the execution