The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Article 282(2) of the Customs Act provides, “In cases of Article 269(2) of the same Act, the goods owned or possessed by an offender shall be forfeited,” and Article 282(3) of the same Act provides, “When all or part of the goods to be forfeited cannot be forfeited, an amount equivalent to the domestic wholesale price of the goods to be forfeited at the time of offense shall be collected from an offender.”

However, the Defendant cannot be viewed as the owner of the gold bullion merely because it is merely a mere simple transportation measure in importing the gold bullion of this case, and it cannot be viewed as the possessor since he does not occupy the gold bullion of this case at present. Thus, the Defendant cannot be seen as the subject of confiscation or collection.

Nevertheless, the court below ordered the defendant to collect additional tax in accordance with Article 282 (3) of the Customs Act. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of the criminal records of the defendant, the degree of participation in the crime, and profits from the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (two years of suspended sentence for eight months of imprisonment, additional collection 52,024,00 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below as to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles and the defense counsel at the court below also asserted the same purport, and the court below may additionally collect, from all offenders, the amount equivalent to the domestic wholesale price of the goods at the time of the offense, regardless of whether the goods are owned or possessed, if several persons evade customs duties or mediate, transport, or acquire customs-free goods in collusion because the additional collection under the Customs Act, unlike the additional collection under the general criminal law, has a punitive character, unlike the additional collection under the general criminal law.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8401 Decided December 28, 2007) rejected the above assertion on the ground of legal principles.

In light of the above legal principles, the judgment of the court below is reasonable.