The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the judgment of Changwon District Court 2013Gadan72391, which is the executive title of the seizure of this case of mistake of facts, was erroneous due to misapprehension of legal principles, the above seizure was revoked, and the defendant did not constitute a crime of concealing indication in the line of duty. The defendant brought the seizure of this case (29 points, such as smuggling, which is a factory machine owned by the defendant) into a factory of Haan-gun F, which is located in Haan-gun, and brought it again into a factory with the intention to bring it back again, and without concealing the above seizure, the defendant was guilty of the charges of this case. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of the fact that there is an error of mistake of facts in the judgment of the court below on unreasonable sentencing, the punishment imposed by the court below (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The court below duly adopted and examined the evidence as to the assertion of mistake of facts, i.e., ① the creditor K's agent G requested the investigative agency to transfer the seized article in this case to F, and received it from the court, and then notified the appraisal agency that there was no seizure article to sell the seized article to the above place. In conclusion, the above seized article was not known, and ② the defendant stated in the investigative agency that "the defendant transferred the seized article in this case as he, his husband, and cargo article were transferred to the same person, and the above seized article is not accurately known, and the husband's contact is not possible (Evidence No. 34-35 of the evidence record)."