All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Of those who filed an import declaration under Article 270(1)1 of the former Customs Act (amended by Act No. 10424, Dec. 30, 2010; hereinafter “the Act”), those who have imported goods without filing a false declaration or false declaration on the dutiable value, customs duty rate, etc. in order to affect the determination of the amount of duty among those who have filed an import declaration under Article 241(1) and (2) or 244(1) of the Act shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than three years, or by a fine equivalent to five times the amount of evaded customs duties, or by the cost of the relevant goods, whichever is lower than the higher.

The crime of evasion of customs duties requires a clear evidence to acknowledge the price actually paid or payable by a buyer for the imported goods in question, which is the basis for calculating the amount of evasion of customs duties, in the event that the customs duties are evaded because the amount of evasion of customs duties should be calculated specifically by calculating the amount of evaded duties and the amount of evasion of customs duties can be determined by falsely preparing or concealing account books and other documentary evidence.

Therefore, in such a case, the method of estimating the amount of evaded tax is also allowed by applying Articles 31 through 35 of the former Customs Act in a successive manner, which is generally acceptable objective and reasonable manner, and the burden of proving the transaction price or cost, which is the basis of the presumption calculation, is the prosecutor.

The judgment below

According to the reasoning, the court below set the requirement that the amount of evaded tax should be specified in order to recognize not only the violation of Article 6 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes but also the establishment of the crime of violation of the Customs Act under Article 270 (1) of the former Customs Act. The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone recognizes the actual unit price for the rise of a domestic organic farmer who can specify the amount of evaded tax under Article 30