All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The penalty surcharge calculated by the lower court based on the summary of the grounds for appeal was calculated excessively by reflecting the market price at the time of the appeal, and the penalty imposed by the lower court (Defendant A: 10 months of imprisonment, 2 years of probation, 80 hours of community service, 693, 352,00 won of surcharge, 6 months of probation, 2 years of probation, 2 years of surcharge, 279, 829,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Article 282(3) of the Customs Act provides that when it is impossible to confiscate all or part of the goods subject to forfeiture pursuant to Article 282(1) and (2) of the same Act, an amount equivalent to the “domestic wholesale price” at the time of the offense of the goods subject to forfeiture shall be additionally collected from the offender.

In this context, “domestic wholesale price” means a price at which a wholesaler purchases imported goods from a trade business entity and openly sells them through a fair transaction method in the domestic wholesale market (Article 266 of the Enforcement Decree of the Customs Act), and as such, domestic wholesale prices, including taxes such as customs duties, customs procedure expenses, and appropriate price of a company, are market prices (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8401, Dec. 28, 2007). Unless there are special circumstances, it cannot be deemed that the value-added tax is excluded from such domestic wholesale prices (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do13591, Jan. 28, 2016). According to the records of data entered in the market price by legitimately adopting the market price in the first instance trial, the amount of additional collection in the judgment below is justifiable in the calculation of the domestic wholesale price calculated by adding 10% value to the market price data of the KRX Exchange at the time of each of the instant crimes, and there is no error in calculating the domestic wholesale price.

B. The Criminal Litigation Act, which takes the principle of unfair trial-oriented and directness in sentencing, has a unique area for sentencing determination, and changes in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court.