The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact that the Defendant, in the process of a mistake of fact, made a statement that specific and understandable reasons for the reason that the instant medical device was written as a consumer product in the item column for a simple statement item in the process of investigation, the lower court erred

B. In light of the interpretation of the relevant provisions, the lower court determined that a person liable to report under the instant penal provision refers to an actual exporter of the goods, but the relevant provision is not prescribed in the form of an offense, and thus, erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2. The lower court determined that it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant was aware of the fact that the Defendant entered the “medical device” into a “medical device” as a “medical device,” and further, the person obligated to report pursuant to Article 241(1) of the Customs Act refers to the actual exporter of the goods, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the fact.

In light of the records, a thorough examination of the judgment of the court below in light of the records, it is difficult to see that the pertinent provision is stipulated in the form of an identification offender, and thus, it cannot be deemed that only the actual owner is punished. However, as long as the defendant knew of the fact that the article was a medical device, the police interrogation protocol against the defendant cannot be used as evidence unless the defendant denies the contents

In the end, the decision that the defendant did not have intention is just, and the prosecutor's assertion about it is not reasonable.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit.