The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant’s export goods are exported after the final transport agency voluntarily prepared and submitted an export declaration to the final transport agency on the condition that the Defendant would export them; and (b) the Defendant’s act constitutes “export by reporting them as different goods from the pertinent export goods” under Article 269(3)2 of the Customs Act.

Nevertheless, the original court rendered a not guilty verdict on the violation of the Customs Act due to violation of Article 269(3)2 of the Customs Act, which is the primary charge of the changed Customs Act, and on the charge of criminal proceeds from the crime. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to the violation of the Customs Act among the primary facts charged in the instant case, the lower court shall be determined on the basis of the difference between the two under the 10-level classification classification table, which is the 10-level classification system publicly notified by the Minister of Finance and Economy (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do1564, Jan. 27, 2006); the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is that the Defendant actually exported the goods, not the goods reported by the export declaration nor the goods other than the goods whose identity is recognized.