The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The scope of the trial (1) The lower court found the Defendant guilty of all the charges of this case and sentenced the Defendant to one year of imprisonment.

(2) Accordingly, the Defendant appealed on the ground of mistake of facts, misapprehension of legal principles, and unreasonable sentencing, and the judgment of the court prior to the reversal and return constitutes a case where the Defendant did not have committed a crime among the facts charged in the instant case, and rendered a judgment of not guilty as to the Defendant’s imprisonment with labor for eight months and the exercise of a false investigation.

(3) Accordingly, the defendant and the prosecutor appealed respectively, and the Supreme Court reversed the above judgment to the effect that the defendant and the prosecutor are guilty of exercising the above investigation Domination.

(4) After the reversal and return, the Defendant maintained the previous argument on mistake of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and unreasonable sentencing.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, while introducing B to E and H, did not intend to import and exercise the forged pound, and on the other hand, did not know that the pound was forged, and thus, even though there was no intention to commit a violation of the Customs Act or an exercise of the perjury, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of all the charges, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is unreasonable and unfair.

3. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, such as the judgment of the court below of the court below, E, and K's statements, seizure records, etc., as to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the defendant was issued a 100,000 poundl from D in China without compensation, and the defendant was aware of the fact that the defendant was found to be in excess of the face value and that the printing status was forged due to bad faith, and entered the Republic of Korea upon D's request, and the defendant entered the Republic of Korea.