All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below convicted Defendant A of this part of the facts charged, although there was no intention to mislead Defendant A of fact or obtain undue property or property benefits. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. Each sentence sentenced by the lower court (the Defendants’ respective fines of KRW 8 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the lower court’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court rejected the Defendants’ assertion in detail under the title “determination on the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion” on the grounds of appeal in this case. In addition, in comparison with the record and examination of the lower court’s aforementioned determination, the lower court’s determination should be examined in detail, and the following circumstances, which can be seen by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, reported by Defendant A, namely, by means of reporting the import price by reducing the price of clothes imported from Vietnam over 12 times in total, and Defendant A, who reported the price of the goods at a lower price without any choice but at a lower rate in the amount of taxes, such as customs duties and surcharges, on the grounds that the Defendants reported the price of the goods at a lower rate in accordance with the sale of clothing at an investigative agency, and thus, the lower court, despite being mistakenly aware of the fact, declared the import price at a lower price by

When considering the fact that the statement (the page 211, 212 of the evidence record), etc., a defendant A may recognize the fact that he/she reported the import price by manipulating the import price for the purpose of acquiring property or property benefits unfairly.

Therefore, the above assertion by the Defendants is without merit.

B. The defendants, who made a judgment on the unfair argument of sentencing, have led to the confession of the crime of evasion of customs duties and the crime of false declaration, and they have divided their errors, and the defendants A around 207.