All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence presented by the prosecutor in the gist of the grounds for appeal, the goods declared for export by the Defendants are “other goods” which are not identical to the goods actually exported, and thus, the Defendants may be found guilty of the primary charges of smuggling export under Article 269(3)2 of the Customs Act.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendants not guilty of the primary facts charged, and there is an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below is that the export declaration of the pertinent goods and "other goods" under Article 269 (3) 2 of the Customs Act do not mean all goods other than the goods reported by the export declaration, but mean all goods other than the goods declared by the export declaration or the goods recognized as identical thereto. The identity between the goods declared by the export declaration and the goods actually exported after customs clearance shall be determined on the basis of the difference between the two 10 unit classification code under the "Customs/Statistical Integration Schedules" which is the ten-stage classification system publicly notified by the Minister of Strategy and Finance (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do1564, Jan. 27, 2006) and the records as follows. In other words, the name of the annexed crime list in the judgment of the court below is specified according to the freight claim by the transportation chain, and the description of the goods actually exported by the defendants to Japan shall not be specified in the export declaration of this case, and the description of the classification code of the goods in question shall not be specified in the process of the import declaration of this case.