All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence presented by the prosecutor in the gist of the grounds for appeal, the goods declared for export by the Defendants are “other goods” which are not identical to the goods actually exported. Thus, the Defendants may be found guilty of the primary charges of smuggling export under Article 269(3)2 of the Customs Act, and all violations of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment, which are premised on the primary charges, may also be found guilty.

Nevertheless, the court below acquitted all the Defendants of violation of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment. The court below erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s judgment does not mean all the goods other than the goods reported by the export declaration pursuant to Article 269(3)2 of the Customs Act and “other goods” means all the goods other than the goods declared by the export declaration, but shall be deemed to mean all the goods other than the goods declared by the export declaration or the goods recognized as identical thereto. The identity between the goods declared by the export declaration and the goods actually exported after customs clearance shall be determined on the basis of the difference between the ten-stage classification code under the “Customs and Statistics Integration Schedules” which is the ten-stage classification system publicly notified by the Minister of Strategy and Finance (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do1564, Jan. 27, 2006), and the following circumstances recognized by the record, namely, the name of the annexed crime list as indicated in the judgment of the lower court is specified according to the freight claim against the Defendants, and what is the goods actually exported by the Defendants is the classification code of the goods in this case.