The judgment below

The part against Defendant A, B, and D among them shall be reversed.

Defendant

A and B shall be sentenced to eight months of imprisonment.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (public prosecutor) The lower court prior to the amendment by Act No. 10424, Dec. 30, 2010;

(a) The same shall apply;

() The crime of evading customs duties under Article 270(4) is a person who is liable to pay customs duties, such as the owner of goods, etc., and the person who is liable to pay duties to Defendant A and Defendant B do not have the identity as the person liable to pay duties. Thus, Article 270(4) of the former Customs Act cannot be applied, and Defendant D (hereinafter “Defendant D”) is subject to joint penal provisions premised on the establishment of the crime committed by the said Defendants.

The lower court acquitted all of the charges of this case on the ground that punishment for the instant charges is also impossible.

However, even though the crime of evading customs duties shall be applied not only to the person liable to pay customs duties but also to the person who actually committed the act of evading customs duties, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the subject of the crime of evading customs duties and acquitted the other charges of this case.

2. Determination

A. Upon ex officio determination as to Defendant A and B ex officio, the prosecutor changed the name of the crime against Defendant A and B from “Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes” to “Violation of the Customs Act”, and the applicable provisions of the Act to “Article 6(4)2 and Article 6(6)4 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Articles 271(2) and 270(4) of the Customs Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act” applied for amendments to “Article 279(1), Article 271(2) and Article 270(4) of the former Customs Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act,” and the court permitted the amendment to amend the Act to “Article 279(1), Article 271(2) and Article 270(4) of the former Customs Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, so

However, even if there are such reasons for ex officio reversal, the Prosecutor’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles as to the Defendants is still subject to the judgment of this court, and thus, it will be examined differently.

B. Prosecution's assertion of misapprehension of the legal principle