The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below acknowledged the accomplice relation with C by misunderstanding of facts, even though the Defendant did not have been involved in the crime, by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (1) the fact that the Defendant imported narcotics above the anesthesia.

② The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on additional collection charges under the Customs Act, thereby calculating excessive additional collection charges without any grounds for the market price or wholesale price, and thereby making the Defendant collect the total amount of additional collection.

(2) The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, even though the Defendant provided only the storage place by gathering the fact that the custody of smuggling was a smuggling.

② In November 2012 and November 2012, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, even though the establishment time of the principal offense in violation of the Customs Act was not specified, even if the Defendant did not constitute a violation of the Customs Act.

③ On December 2012, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, even though this part of the indictment was null and void in accordance with the provisions of Acts, as it was based on the vessel investigation.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, fine 25 million won, confiscation, and collection) is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) The lower court’s determination on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts as to the allegation of smuggling (1) may be recognized based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, i.e., the following circumstances: (a) C developed an anesthesia outside of the anesthesia (hereinafter “anesthesia”) in Canada on April 2012 in order to develop the domestic market; (b) the Defendant became aware of the fact that the Defendant came to know of the fact that he/she was a domestic pharmaceutical company in the process of coloring the domestic pharmaceutical company for the purpose of developing the domestic market; and (c) the Defendant, even though having not obtained the permission of the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety around June 2012, to sell it domestically; and (d) KRW 40 million in the name of deposit, to C.