Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentencing of the lower court (the fine of KRW 45 million) is too unreasonable.

B. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor by mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the defendant's export declaration of goods shall be deemed to be "other goods" which are not identical to the goods actually exported, and thus, can be found guilty of the principal facts charged in the crime of smuggling export under Article 269 (3) 2 of the Customs Act, and all of the charges of violation of the Act on the Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment, etc. premised on this premise may be found guilty. Nevertheless, the court below acquitted the defendant of all of the charges of violation of the Act on the Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment. The court below erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. As to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, the court below held that the pertinent goods and “other goods” under Article 269(3)2 of the Customs Act shall not mean all goods other than the goods reported by the export declaration, but shall mean the goods other than the goods declared by the export declaration or the goods recognized as identical to the goods declared by the export declaration. The identity of the goods declared by the export declaration and the goods actually exported through customs shall be determined on the basis of whether the two is different in terms of whether the ten unit classification code of the two are identical in accordance with the 10-stage Classification publicly notified by the Secretary of the Ministry of Finance and Economy (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do1564, Jan. 27, 2006).