1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

3. Order of the court of first instance.

1. The reasons why this Court has adopted the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. The argument that the Defendants emphasized in this court is identical to the reasons of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for those cases where the Defendants determined as above 2. Thus, this Court shall accept it in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

At the third bottom of the judgment of the court of first instance, 5 lines “application and obtaining approval” were “written and accepted.”

The 7th page of the judgment of the first instance is 12 lines "spokeing with wire ropes".

2. Determination as to the assertion emphasized by the Defendants in this Court

A. As to the assertion on the interpretation of the nomenclatures, the Defendants stressed that the issues are not charged with wire ropes or wire ropes for telecommunications equipment, thereby falling under only 3090, and cannot be classified as 3010, and thus, are not subject to the usage tariff rate.

In light of the evidence presented in the first instance court, the fact-finding and judgment of the first instance court that even if the evidence presented in the first instance court was presented to this court, the key chargeer may be used both for mobile phone use, i.e., for other electronic devices, as well as for telecommunications equipment, and can be applied with the usage tariff rate of 3010 is justified.

The defendants' assertion is without merit.

B. Determination 1 on the assertion that the application of the usage tariff rate cannot be made due to the lack of approval by the head of a customs office. The Defendants asserts that even if the key charging period is subject to the application of the usage tariff rate, the application thereof may be approved by the head of a customs office. However, since the Defendants did not have obtained approval, Article 83(1) of the Customs Act provides that the pertinent charging period shall not be subject to the application of the usage tariff rate.