A. misunderstanding of legal principles: (a) The purpose of collection of the charge of violating the Customs Act is to deprive the accomplices of their unlawful profits and prevent them from holding them; (b) the amount of collection is to be collected individually by examining the existence of substantial profits among accomplices; and (c) if the value is not known, it shall be collected equally; and (d) the domestic wholesale price of the instant case is to be 6,500-7,000 won per 1 km; and (e) the amount of collection is to be 2,100,000 won; and (e) the lower court collected 2,60,000,000 won against the Defendant A and B and 1,934,43,000 won against the Defendant C. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The lower court’s punishment (Defendant A: imprisonment of 2 years, fine of 54,00,000 won, penalty of 2,600,000,000 won, penalty of 2 years, fine of 45,000,000 won, penalty of 2 years, fine of 600,000 won, and penalty of 2,600,000,000 won, Defendant C: imprisonment of 1 year and 3 years of suspended execution; fine of 14,40,000 won, penalty of 1,934,43,000 won) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

A. 1) misunderstanding of the legal principles as to additional collection under the Customs Act is different from the additional collection under the general criminal law, and if several persons conspired to evade customs duties, arrange for the transportation of, or acquire customs stolen water, and if one person owns or possesses the goods, the full amount of the value equivalent to the domestic wholesale price at the time of the offense may be collected from all the offenders, regardless of whether the goods are owned or possessed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 84Do397, Jun. 12, 1984; 2007Do8401, Dec. 28, 2007). In light of the above legal principles, if there is no ownership or possession of the goods, the additional collection under the Customs Act shall be ordered against each of the Defendants as to the whole, as well as to only the persons who have actually obtained a profit by directly disposing of the instant drilling, even if there is no possession or possession. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is justified.