Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against Defendant D in the judgment is reversed.

Defendant

D. A person shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than six months.

(2).

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (i) was aware of the facts before December 5, 2012, Defendant A did not conspired with Defendant C to commit the instant third crime committed around December 5, 2012, and even if so, was involved in the said crime.

Even if it is the aiding and abetting crime, the punishment of the first deliberation of the sentence of punishment (the punishment of imprisonment of 1 year and 6 months, the additional collection of 317,095,102) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant C (misunderstanding of facts and legal principles) did not attract Defendant A, B, and each of the instant customs violations crimes, and did not participate in the said crimes.

(c)

The Prosecutor’s (i.e., Defendant D) shall be sentenced to the penalty on the charge of aiding and abetting each of the instant offenses in violation of the Customs Act jointly with the other Defendants.

B. The sentence of the first instance on Defendant A and B (Defendant A: imprisonment of one year and six months, additional collection of KRW 317,095,102, Defendant B: imprisonment of one year and one year, two years, one year of suspended execution, one year of community service order, 160 hours, 317,095,102 additional collection of KRW 317,00,02) is too uneasible.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, Defendant A asserted the same purport in the first instance trial.

The first instance court rejected Defendant A’s assertion by stating in detail the following in detail the summary of the evidence in the judgment.

In comparison with records, a thorough examination is conducted, and in addition to the following circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the first instance court and the first instance court, the first instance judgment is justifiable.

Defendant

A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

① On December 5, 2012, Defendant C’s objective evidentiary materials, such as Defendant C’s statement in 2012, stating that he/she was paid the price by supplying coal to the Co., Ltd., and Defendant C’s account statement in November 23, 2012, which Defendant C remitted USD 10,00 to the Co., Ltd. N., Ltd., on November 23, 2012, support Defendant C’s statement regarding the instant third crime.

② Several times from Defendant B.