All appeals are dismissed.

1. According to the records against Defendant C, while appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance, the above Defendant asserted misunderstanding of facts as well as unfair sentencing on the grounds of appeal, but revoked the grounds for appeal as to mistake of facts on the second trial date of the court below, and left the sentencing only on the grounds of appeal. Thus, the allegation that there was an error of misunderstanding of legal principles in the judgment of the court below is not a legitimate ground for appeal as a new argument in the final appeal.

In addition, pursuant to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years is imposed, an appeal may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. As such, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. The recognition of criminal facts against Defendant F and G customs service corporation should be proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). However, the selection of evidence and the probative value of evidence conducted on the premise of fact-finding belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court (Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act). For the reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that Defendant F committed the instant crime under mutual understanding that he shared the act that constitutes the constituent requirements with A, etc., and determined that Defendant F’s act does not constitute an error under Article 16 of the Criminal Act, and rejected the allegation of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

The grounds of appeal purporting to the effect that this determination of the lower court is based on the fact-finding are nothing more than denying the lower court’s determination on the selection and probative value of evidence, which actually belongs to the free judgment of the fact-finding court. Furthermore, even if examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court