The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the records of Defendant A’s grounds of appeal in light of the relevant legal principles, the court below is justified in finding Defendant A guilty of violating the Customs Act due to evasion of each of the charges of this case, on the grounds as stated in its reasoning.

In so doing, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of finding facts contrary to logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending the legal principles on the crime of evading disposition on default under the Customs Act.

2. As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal

(a) the principle of clarity derived from the principle of no crime without the law means that anyone can anticipate what the act is intended to punish and what punishment is and what is the elements of a crime that makes it possible to determine that person's act;

However, it is not necessary to define all elements of a punishment law as a simple descriptive concept by clarifying the elements of a punishment law. Even if a person has a sound common sense and ordinary legal sentiment by means of ordinary interpretation, if a person has a sound common sense and ordinary legal sentiment, it is not contrary to the clarity of the punishment law.

In addition, the issue of which legal norm is clear may be determined depending on whether the legal norm gives predictability by giving fair notice to the persons who can understand the meaning of the law, whether arbitrary interpretation of the law or exclusion of enforcement of the law by regulating sufficient meaning to the institutions that interpret and enforce the law, and if so, whether arbitrary predictability and exclusion of enforcement of the law can be ensured.

However, the meaning of the legal norm is the content.