The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Incheon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the violation of the Customs Act due to smuggling import

A. According to Article 241(1) of the Customs Act, Article 246(2)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Customs Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26957, Feb. 5, 2016), a person who intends to import goods shall submit to the head of a customs office an import declaration stating the name, etc. of the relevant goods.

Article 269 (2) 2 of the Customs Act provides for a provision punishing those who have imported goods different from the imported goods even though they have filed a declaration under Article 241 (1) of the Customs Act.

"Goods different from the imported goods" under Article 269 (2) 2 of the same Customs Act means all goods other than those declared by the import declaration, but not all goods other than the goods declared by the import declaration or goods similar thereto. Here, goods recognized as identical refers to the same kind of goods as the requirements for the acceptance of the import declaration, and even if the goods are the same kind of goods, they cannot be deemed the same goods if the requirements for the acceptance of the import declaration are different (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do12443, Nov. 10, 201). (b) According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted, the following facts are revealed.

(1) Defendant A, the representative director of Defendant D, had been assembled from May 27, 2009 to November 7, 201 by a Chinese manufacturer, to

(2) Defendant A did not obtain permission to import the instant goods by item.