The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant ordered a Chinese exporter to shoulder, but in fact, roasting in Korea, the Defendant did not have any intention to commit a violation of the Customs Act, and there was no official standard to distinguish roasting and roasting the Defendant’s imported goods, but the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is the representative of D who engages in trade and wholesale business in agricultural products in accordance with Article 48 of the Busan High-ro, Busan High-ro.

If a person intends to import goods, the name of the relevant goods shall be reported conscientiously, and such goods shall not be imported differently from the name of the import declaration filed with the head of any customhouse.

roasting, when using roasting as a shoulderer compared to those of roasting unroasting life, roasting to domestic consumers good, but roasting to China is 45% (additional duty rate of 10%) with rate of customs duty, and there is no benefit due to high rate of customs duty compared to middle roasing (tariff 10%) with high rate of customs duty, and the Defendant declared that roasing to be imported by reporting as being roasing to the shoulder.

In May 2016, the Defendant ordered the Chinese agricultural products exporters and the Defendant to carry out brokerage work between the Chinese agricultural products exporters and the Defendant, and the Defendant ordered roasting in China F, and the Defendant roasting in the container inside the container, the Defendant roasting roasting roassing in the container, and on the entrance side of the container, the Defendant demanded the entry of the Chinese agricultural products, the rate of duty of which is 0%, into the roasing method.

On May 20, 2016, roastings, which are smuggling imported goods, inside the container as ordered by the Defendant, entered 22,020km (1,101 boxes) on the inside of the container, and at the entrance of the container, E directly confirms the entry of 1,980km (1,101 boxes) on the top of the normal goods at the port of container entry at the port of container and loads in China.