The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant statutes and the evidence duly adopted by the first instance court, the lower court’s determination that the facts charged in the instant case were guilty on the grounds stated in its reasoning is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the prohibition of analogical interpretation, which is the content of the

In addition, in light of the legislative purpose, contents, and objective interpretation, etc. of the customs-related provisions on the export declaration of postal items, the provisions such as Article 258(2) of the Customs Act, Article 261 subparag. 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Customs Act, and Article 36 of the Notice on the Handling of Export Customs Clearance cannot be deemed to deviate from the limit of delegated legislation or go against the principle of clarity, and thus, the argument in the grounds of appeal purporting

Meanwhile, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the sentencing of the punishment is unreasonable

The remaining grounds of appeal are not legitimate grounds of appeal, as they are alleged in the grounds of appeal by the defendant or by the court below that they were not subject to a judgment ex officio.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.