The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (in fact-finding and misunderstanding of legal principles), among the facts charged in the instant case, the fact that the U.S. has evaded customs duties by filing a false declaration at a low price while importing ragles from the U.S. among the instant facts charged. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misunderstanding the fact that the Defendant was not liable for duty under the Customs Act on the grounds that the remainder of smuggling revenues and illegal reduction and exemption did not constitute a taxpayer for duty, thereby making a mistake in finding

1) The violation of the Customs Act due to smuggling import 1) When domestic buyers order goods overseas sold in the Internet open market such as Gmarket, D. D. (hereinafter referred to as "D") operated by the defendant.

(2) A person who is obligated under the Customs Act as an importer to import goods at issue, such as fishbts, etc., that he/she had performed the role of requesting a company to deliver to the customer the goods purchased in the United States according to the order of a domestic buyer, is not a domestic buyer and the defendant cannot be the subject of the crime of smuggling import since it cannot be the import price of the goods. (2) The goods related to smuggling import is not a small-value duty-free goods for which a domestic buyer commissions the defendant to purchase for personal consumption, but is not subject to the regular import declaration under the Customs Act. In addition, since the import declaration was made through a simplified method determined by the Commissioner of the Korea Customs Service in accordance with Article 241, Paragraph (2) of the Customs Act at the time of bringing the goods into the Republic of Korea

3. According to Article 282(2) of the Customs Act, goods brought in after filing a declaration in a bonded area do not constitute subject to forfeiture. Since the fishbts, etc. in this case were stored in a bonded area operated by a home-based company and brought in through a list of customs clearance procedures, it cannot be collected as a substitute for forfeiture, and the defendant's act is recognized as smuggling.