The defendants' appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, although the Defendants did not own or possess the Korean cosmetic (hereinafter referred to as the “cosmetic of this case”) that was closely exported as shown in the attached list of crimes as indicated in the judgment below, the court below ordered the Defendants to collect additional collection in accordance with Article 282 of the Customs Act by applying Article 282 of the same Act. There is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (Defendant A: 2 years of suspended sentence and additional collection in August, 200; KRW 1,029,353,90; KRW 7 million and additional collection in Defendant B; KRW 1,029,353,90, and KRW 1,029,353,990) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

(a) The main text of Article 282(2) of the Customs Act claiming factual misunderstanding is to confiscate the goods owned or possessed by an offender in the case of Article 269(2) and (3) or 274(1)1.

The provision of Paragraph 3 of the same Article provides that "if it is impracticable to confiscate all or part of the goods subject to forfeiture pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2, the amount equivalent to the domestic wholesale price at the time of the offense of the goods which cannot be forfeited shall be collected from the offender.

” 고 규정하고 있는 바, 범인이 밀수품을 소유하거나 점유한 사실이 있다면 압수 또는 몰수가 가능한 시기에 범인이 이를 소유하거나 점유한 사실이 있는지 여부에 상관없이 관세법 제 282조에 따라 몰수 또는 추징할 수 있다( 대법원 2007. 12. 28. 선고 2007도 8401 판결 등 참조). 원심이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의하면, 피고인 A는 위챗을 통해 모집한 외국인 등을 통해 면세점에서 한국산 화장품 등 토산품을 대리 구매하였고, 대리 구매한 화장품을 사무실에 보관하다가 직접 박스 포장을 하여 국제 우편물 발송 대행업체에 전달하는 방법으로 수출한 사실을 인정할 수 있다.

If so, I would like to point out that Defendant A owned or occupied the cosmetic in the process of smuggling export.