1. The judgment below is reversed.

2. Defendant A, B, and D are punished by a fine of KRW 14,250,00, and Defendant C, respectively.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendants’ assertion (1) that there was no misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles that the Defendants violated the Customs Act No. 1 listed in the annexed Table No. 2009, Mar. 30, 2009. 2) that there was no false declaration of the purchase price or the fare of the Defendant on March 30, 2009. 1) The Defendants’ assertion (1) was partially amended by Act No. 9910, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter referred to as the “former Customs Act”).

(3) Defendant B’s assertion that the crime of false declaration under Articles 276(1)4 and 241(1) refer only to the purchase price of the pertinent goods. As such, the Defendants did not have the intent to commit a false declaration. (2) The Defendants did not have the intent to commit a false declaration. (3) Defendants B’ assertion that the Defendants’ act constitutes a mistake in the law under Article 16 of the Criminal Act, and thus, did not constitute a false declaration under Articles 16(2) and 241(1).

C) Defendants of the Defendant D and E Customs Service offices did not neglect to exercise due care and supervision to prevent the false reporting crimes by Defendant A and C, who are their employees. (B) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants (Defendant A, B, and D: Fines 14,400,000, Defendant C, and E Customs Service: Each fine was imposed on the Defendants: KRW 9,60,000,000, respectively.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. Only on the basis of the written accusation prepared by the head of the Gun/Gu to determine whether the Defendants violated the Customs Act No. 1 listed in the annexed Table No. 1 of the crime list, and the comprehensive investigation report prepared by the head of the Gun/Gu customs office in charge of the military customs office, each of which is sufficient to recognize that the Defendants filed a false declaration of 221 per ton of 244 metrics, which is the actual purchase price of the mouth on March 30, 2009, and there is no other sufficient evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Rather, it can be recognized by the records of this case.