The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant was not aware of the fact that the number of car cars purchased from H had been pushed down in China due to a sudden increase.

B. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the collection of additional charges of KRW 468,361,00 from the defendant, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (eight months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, ① the Defendant sold a short-term motor vehicle number, etc. in the F market from February 21, 2001 to “G”; ② H appears to be a total of 135 times from January 2, 2009 to June 16, 201 to a total of 135 times from January 2, 2009 to a large of 135 times.

1. From 135 to 135, the number of car cars stated on H had been supplied. ③ The number of car cars supplied from H was 5 km, which had no indication on the surface of the outer area, and the number of car cars imported on the other hand were packed into plastic bags with 10 km attached with the Korean sign under the Food Sanitation Act. On the other hand, the number of car cars imported on a regular basis was packed into 10 km, which had been sealed with the Korean sign under the Food Sanitation Act. ④ Since the Defendant sold the above "G" for several years, it appears that the Defendant could have identified the number of car cars imported on a regular basis as well as the number of car cars imported on a regular basis. ⑤ At the court of the lower court, H made a statement to the effect that the number of car cars purchased from 000 to 50 g of 10 g of the total number of car cars in Korea on the regular basis, and that the number of car cars purchased from 00 to 50 g of the total number of car cars.