The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 15,000,000.

Defendant

A The above fine shall be imposed.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds of appeal (the penalty of KRW 18,00,000, and the penalty of KRW 200,755,090, jointly with each other) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal.

A. Article 282(3) of the Customs Act provides that “The amount of money equivalent to the domestic wholesale price at the time of the offense of goods which cannot be forfeited shall be collected from the offender.” The lower court jointly collected the domestic wholesale price from the Defendants on the grounds that the domestic wholesale price is recognized as a general agent, gas station (including direct management), general retail store, and sales store other than petroleum retailers under the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act, and the evidence duly adopted and examined on the basis of the average sales price (including value added tax; hereinafter referred to as “average sales price”) of each ship’s transit quantity in June 2016, which is close to the date of the lower judgment’s declaration, based on the premise that the domestic wholesale price is calculated based on the average sales price of each ship’s transit quantity at each sales store (including value added tax; hereinafter referred to as “average sales price”), the average sales price for the ship’s transit on board is 1104.47 won per liter, and the total sales price for the container imported is 181.76km (1,7641,7501.7

Although the lower court did not err in calculating the domestic wholesale price as above, [it shall include value added (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do13591, Jan. 28, 2016) with the domestic wholesale price referred to in Article 282 (3) of the Customs Act, barring any special circumstance], it is erroneous for the lower court to apply the monthly average sales price from March 2015 to July 2016, which is the domestic wholesale price at the time of the offense, and to calculate the amount of additional collection by applying the average sales price in June 2016, which is near the date of the lower judgment’s declaration, was erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal doctrine of Article 282 (3) of the Customs Act.

However, comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the average monthly sales price from March to July 2015 is less than the average sales price in June 2016.