All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, "goods different from imported goods" in Article 269(2)2 of the Customs Act and the former Customs Act (amended by Act No. 10424, Dec. 30, 2010) shall not mean all goods other than those reported by the import declaration, but shall be deemed to mean all goods other than goods whose import declaration was filed or goods whose identity is recognized.

Here, the similarity between the goods reported in accordance with the import declaration and the goods actually imported through customs should be determined on the basis of whether the 10-unit classification code under the Consolidated Schedules of the two countries is the same or not.

(1) In light of the evidence duly admitted by the court below and the legal principles as seen earlier, the court below’s determination that Defendant C reported and imported goods different from imported goods on the premise that Defendant C’s imported goods are different from the satellite receiver’s imported goods, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles as to Article 269(2)2 of the Customs Act, or by violating the precedents of the Supreme Court.

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on the ground of appeal No. 2 in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court in light of the relevant statutes and relevant legal principles, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that even if the lower court, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, installed an exclusive O/S program for the instant three-saws imported from China, or enclosed a film antenna and “B-CAS-CAD” or assembled a case, it is difficult to view it as a process that causes substantial transformation. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations, and thereby,