The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 12 million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (as to the violation of the Customs Act due to smuggling, which is the principal charge), the court below erred by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant was not guilty of this part of the facts charged, and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, since it is recognized that it is not identical between the goods declared export and the goods actually exported. Thus, the crime of violating the Customs Act due to smuggling under Article 269(3)2 of the Customs Act is established.

B. Defendant 1’s punishment (fine 12 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal prior to the judgment ex officio.

The court below found a person guilty of violating the Customs Act due to a false declaration, which is an ancillary charge, and applied the pertinent provision to the portion of the false declaration of the price of goods listed in the annexed Table 87 through 94, as stated in the judgment of the court below, "Article 276 (2) 4 and Article 241 (1) of the Customs Act," but "Article 270-2 subparagraph 3 and Article 241 (1) of the Customs Act, which applies to "a person who manipulates the price of goods for the purpose of acquiring, or causing a third party to acquire, property or property benefits in filing a declaration under Article 241 (1) of the Customs Act," which applies to "the person who manipulates the price of goods for the purpose of obtaining, or causing a third party to acquire,

In this respect, the judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the prosecutor's argument about the violation of the Customs Act due to smuggling, which is the primary charge, is still meaningful, and this is also examined.

3. Determination on the prosecutor’s grounds for appeal (as to the violation of the Customs Act due to smuggling export, which is the primary charge), the lower court erred by violating the Customs Act due to smuggling export, which is the primary charge of the instant case.