The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence against the accused shall be 7,99,000 won.

Defendant. A fine.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. In full view of the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor 1 of the misunderstanding of the facts or legal principles, the Defendant’s primary charges of violating the Customs Act by smuggling export as prescribed by Article 269(3)2 of the Customs Act may be found guilty, and the Defendant also can be found guilty of violation of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds (hereinafter referred to as the “Act on Concealment of Criminal Proceeds”).

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby having acquitted all of them.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination as to the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles on the part of not guilty of a violation of the Customs Act by smuggling (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do1564, Jan. 27, 2006). The term “export goods and other goods” in Article 269(3)2 of the Customs Act means all goods other than the goods declared by the export declaration, not all goods declared by the export declaration, but all goods other than the goods declared by the export declaration. It shall be deemed that the goods declared by the export declaration and the goods actually exported through customs are identical to the goods declared by the export declaration. The identity between the goods declared by the export declaration and the goods actually exported through customs shall be determined on the basis of whether the ten unit classification code of the two goods is the same or not, as publicly notified by the Minister of Finance and Economy (see, e., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do1564, Jan. 27, 2006).