The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of fact-finding, since it is recognized that the defendant is not identical to the goods whose export declaration was filed and the goods whose export was actually exported, the court below erred in finding the defendant not guilty of the charge on the part of the reasons, although it can be found that the defendant violated the Customs Act due to smuggling export under Article 269 (3) 2 of the Customs Act, and all facts charged in violation of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds Related to such a violation.

B. In light of the various sentencing conditions of this case, the sentence of a fine of KRW 15 million imposed by the court below against the defendant is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. 1) The judgment of the court below as to the violation of the Customs Act among the primary facts charged in the instant case should be based on the difference between the two's 10 unit classification code and the two's 10 unit classification code among the main facts charged in the instant case (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do1564, Jan. 27, 2006); the term "other goods" in Article 269 (3) 2 of the Customs Act means all goods other than the exported goods declared by the export declaration and all goods other than the exported goods declared by the export declaration; and the identity between the goods declared by the export declaration and the goods actually exported after the customs clearance; and the identity of the goods as declared by the export declaration should be determined based on whether the two two unit classification code are the same (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do1564, Jan. 27, 2006).