The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principle in the misapprehension of legal principle, which declared the collection of additional charges to the defendant who is an employee of the instant restaurant, and the amount of additional charges was also excessive.

B. The punishment sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing (the fine of one million won, the additional collection of 3.24 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Article 282(3) of the Customs Act provides that, where goods to be forfeited pursuant to Article 282(1) and (2) of the Customs Act cannot be forfeited, an amount equivalent to the domestic wholesale price at the time of offense shall be collected from “a person who commits an offense” as a penalty.

The additional collection under the Customs Act, unlike the additional collection under the General Criminal Act, is of a punitive nature, and where many other persons conspired to import smuggling or acquire the smuggling, the additional collection should be made in full from all of the offenders even if only one of the offenders owns or occupies the goods.

Based on the above legal principles, even if the defendant acquired a smuggling in accordance with the direction of the operator of the restaurant of this case, as alleged by the defendant, and all of the profits accrued to the operator of the restaurant of this case, the defendant who committed the crime of violating the Customs Act by acquiring and selling the smuggling directly from the operator of the school of this case shall be deemed to have no choice but to collect the total amount equivalent to the domestic wholesale price of the Altitude in this case from the operator of the school.

Therefore, the court below did not err in imposing additional collection on the defendant.

Furthermore, according to the records, it appears that the domestic wholesale price (total amount of KRW 3,240,00) at the time of the crime of this case was calculated through adequate price appraisal of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class imported (see evidence No. 135, e.