The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by a fine of five million won.

Defendant

A does not pay the above fine.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The goods purchased by Defendant A is not a normal vehicle that can be operated, but only a transaction as directed by the U.S. military trading agency. Thus, the Defendant did not intend to violate the Customs Act because the Defendant did not file a customs declaration while taking over the instant used vehicle.

Since the method of calculating the amount to be collected by the court below applies to cases where normal goods are imported and traded normally, the above method shall not apply to cases where the defendant purchases automobile-scrapping as in this case and uses it separately, and the remainder is treated in scrap metal.

The sentence of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing (each fine of KRW 5 million, additional collection of KRW 157,969,965 against Defendant A) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendants ex officio, the court below selected each fine for the violation of each Customs Act in the judgment on concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Thus, the court below omitted the determination of fines for each offense of violation of the Customs Act under Article 278 of the Customs Act (Article 38 (1) 2 of the Criminal Act does not apply to the violation of the Customs Act).

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the aggravation of concurrent crimes.

However, despite such reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendants' assertion of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court.

As to the assertion that there was no intention, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, ① Defendant A operated a used vehicle seller from around 2007. However, in light of the above Defendant’s occupation and experience, the above Defendant was more than four years from May 2012.