The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Seized evidence shall be confiscated.

1. The sentence of the lower court (one-year imprisonment) is too unreasonable as to the gist of the grounds for appeal.

2. The Defendant: (a) imported or sealed the gold bars in excess of a total of KRW 3.6 billion by concealing them in an resistance 77 times between approximately a year and six months; and (b) imported or sealed them.

The defendant was involved in the crime of robbery that is organized and planned for a long time, and the amount and the amount of the smuggling are also reasonable.

Such crimes are crimes that impede the balance of payments and the stability of monetary values, prevent customs revenue from being secured, and disrupt sound order in distribution, and thus are not good enough to commit such crimes.

Considering these circumstances, the criminal liability of the defendant is heavy.

Since the sentence corresponding to it is inevitable to declare it.

However, it is necessary to fully consider the following circumstances in determining the specific punishment against the accused.

The Defendant recognized the instant crime from the investigative agency to reflect in depth the Defendant’s mistake, and actively cooperated with the investigation by providing the instant gold leader, etc. to the investigative agency with information on the instant Kim Jong-do.

The Defendant only actively participated in the instant crime by taking the role of simple transportation in the process of bullying, and was relatively passive in comparison with the total amount of the crime, and the pecuniary gain acquired by the Defendant directly from the instant crime is much compared to the total amount of the crime.

shall not be deemed to exist.

There is no record of having been sentenced to the same power and suspension of execution or heavier punishment for the defendant, and there is some circumstance to consider the circumstances of the crime in light of the fact that the defendant, who is the most common criminal defendant, alone after the divorce, is responsible for the livelihood of his family.

It is relatively clear that the social relationship is relatively clear, such as the family and branch members of the defendant wanting to have the defendant's wife.

In addition to these circumstances, the defendant's age, sex, environment, and crime.