The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant is merely a private person’s assistant duty, and the Defendant’s duties performed are confirmed the container seal number according to the direction of the team leader, and such duties do not constitute tallying.

Even if the defendant's work is tally conducted, it cannot be expected that the defendant, a new member, refuses to follow the company's commercial instruction.

Therefore, although the defendant is not guilty, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence (an amount of KRW 500,000) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, “tallyman” in the Port Transport Business Act refers to a person engaged in tallying as an occupation (Article 2 subparag. 5 of the same Act), and “tallying” refers to calculating the number of cargo when loading or unloading cargo, or certifying the delivery or receipt of the cargo (Article 2 subparag. 14 of the same Act). According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant sufficiently recognized that the Defendant had conducted a substantial examination as an occupation, such as checking the seals number of the cargo loaded, even if it is not a registered tally inspector, and cannot be deemed that the said work was merely a supplementary work for tallying.

In addition, the person who allowed the defendant to do so was a registered inspector.

Even if the defendant's act cannot be deemed the same as the tallyman's tallying service, such circumstance does not affect the establishment of the defendant's crime.

On the other hand, just because the defendant is a new member of D and was engaged in the tallying service upon the instruction of his superior, it cannot be said that there is no possibility that the defendant will not participate in the criminal act (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do1911 delivered on July 23, 199, etc.).