(b) Where goods have been forfeited because an intended import of smuggling in the Republic of Korea was detected in a foreign country, and a copy of additional collection;

2. If the goods discovered and seized in a foreign country while evading customs duties by importing smuggling in the Republic of Korea were not later confiscated but later returned to the possession or possession of the defendant, but cannot be confiscated, an amount equivalent to the domestic wholesale price at the time of the offense shall be additionally collected in accordance with Article 198 of the Customs Act; however, if the goods were confiscated in a foreign country and thus are deprived of their ownership, and thus, cannot be confiscated, it shall not be collected in accordance with the above Article of the Customs Act.

With respect to No. 1:

According to the records, the defendant, in collusion with the above defendants, concealed 150 male visibility 3,150,000 won at the market price in Japan for the purpose of evading customs duties and defense taxes, and there is no reason to argue that the defendant did not conduct a review on whether he had the intention to file an import declaration in a case where he could be able to see the fact that he had been discovered by the Japanese customs authorities while hiding 52 gold-free goods export vessel belonging to the NAF that the defendant et al. had been on board a ship by the defendant, etc., but was discovered by the Japanese customs authorities.

With respect to the second ground:

Article 7 of the Criminal Act provides that punishment may be mitigated or exempted at the discretion of a court against a person who has undergone the execution of all or part of punishment in a foreign country for an offense, and it does not necessarily require mitigation or exemption from punishment in a foreign country. In this case, even though the defendant et al. received execution of punishment in Japan, it cannot be said that the sentence imposed on the defendant et al. is contrary to Article 7 of the Criminal Act.

2. Defendant 2’s defense counsel’s grounds of appeal and the Defendant’s defense counsel’s Kim Jong-jin’s grounds of appeal are also examined.

According to the court below's decision, 150 Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's Japan's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country.

Therefore, since the appeal on this case is well-grounded, according to Articles 390 and 391 and 397 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court which is the original judgment. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Min Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)