The part concerning Defendant A and M in the judgment of the court of first instance and the part concerning Defendant A in the judgment of the court of second instance.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants (In the case of Defendants A: Imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months; fine for 10 million won; imprisonment for six months; suspended execution for two years; imprisonment for a probation; imprisonment for 7 million won; probation; imprisonment with prison labor for 1.2 million won; and Defendant B: Defendant B was sentenced to a fine of 2 million won in the judgment of the second instance; but did not appeal against the second instance judgment. Defendant M: Defendant M; fine of 3 million won in the judgment of the second instance; and fine of 7 million won in the judgment of the first instance - the judgment of the second instance is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant M (Definite) was the fact that around 18:48 on May 23, 2014, Defendant M attempted to move a box to T vehicle, and the fact that Defendant M did not transport the box to a place where it could not be known, such as Article 4-b of the judgment of the court below, but the court below found Defendant M guilty of this part of the facts charged as to Defendant M, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment, by misunderstanding the fact that the judgment of the court below was erroneous.

2. Determination:

A. Before determining the grounds for appeal by Defendant A's ex officio, Defendant A filed an appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance, and the court of first instance decided to hold concurrent hearings of the above two appeals. As long as the facts constituting the above judgment of the court below are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the judgment of the court of first instance should be rendered concurrently and one sentence should be imposed. Thus, the part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A among the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

B. According to the images of the photograph (section 261 of the investigation record of the first instance court) attached to the investigation report (hereinafter “the investigation record of the first instance court”), which is evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding Defendant M’s assertion of mistake of facts, it is recognized that Defendant M loaded the goods illegally captured on the T vehicle on May 23, 2014 and was on board the front line. Accordingly, Defendant M directly.