A. The Defendant, who was aware of the fact or misunderstanding of legal principles, is only a fact that he purchased and transported smartphones upon the request of the Chinese government, and there was no fact that the Defendant attempted to export it closely or to export it as stated in the judgment of the court below.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fines 3,00,000, additional collection KRW 33,515,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. Article 269(3)1 of the Customs Act provides that “any person who exports or returns goods without filing a declaration in accordance with Article 241(1) and (2)” shall be punished, and Article 241(1) of the same Act provides that “any person who exports, imports, or returns the goods shall file a report thereon with the head of a customs office on the description, quantity, quantity, and value of the goods in question and other matters prescribed by Presidential Decree.” Considering that Article 269(3)1 of the Customs Act provides that a person who exports the goods without filing a necessary export declaration shall be punished without filing a necessary export declaration and does not require a certain status with the head of a customs office, it is reasonable to deem that any person who exports the goods without filing a report may be the subject of the offense provided for in Article 269(3)1 of the Customs Act.” Article 242 of the Customs Act provides that “the declaration in accordance with Article 241 shall be filed in the name of the owner or a licensed customs broker, etc.”

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Do10984 Decided November 28, 2013, and Busan District Court Decision 2013No1490 Decided August 22, 2013). Circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court are: (a) the Defendant purchased a heavy smartphone at the mobile phone agency, etc. with China, and received a request from D to send it to Hong Kong; and (b) the Defendant received a heavy smartphone.