The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

In light of the records, we examine the judgment below on the basis of the comparison of the records. The judgment below is just in holding that the soft coffee constitutes a synthetic beverage whose raw material is fry, reduced fry (including natural reduced fry)" as provided in subparagraph 4B of attached Table 1 of Article 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Special Consumption Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 11417 of May 1, 1984), such as fry, fry, color fry, and so on, and so on as to be used directly for drinking, or for drinking by dilution or dilution, and there is no error of law in interpreting laws as it is so decided as to fry, and subparagraph 4 of attached Table 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Special Consumption Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 11417 of May 1, 1984) which contains no content of the special consumption tax in the case where it is found that it is fry, dyke (including the special consumption tax), dry, and other raw material.

In addition, even before the amendment of the above Enforcement Decree, there is no room to deem that the tax practice without imposing the special consumption tax has been established on the beverages containing not less than 10 percent of the milk, such as the smuggling and coffee in this case. Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that the instant taxation disposition is unlawful on the grounds of the same reasons as the novel in the lawsuit. All the arguments are without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Yoon-hee (Presiding Justice)