The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence presented by the prosecutor in the gist of the grounds for appeal, since goods reported for export by the defendant are "other goods" which are not identical to the goods actually exported, the court below found the defendant guilty of the primary charges of smuggling export as provided by Article 269(3)2 of the Customs Act, but the court below erred by misunderstanding facts or misunderstanding legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s judgment on the primary facts charged in the crime of smuggling under Article 269(3)2 of the Customs Act does not mean all the goods other than the goods reported by an export declaration pursuant to Article 269(3)2 of the Customs Act, but means all the goods other than the goods whose export declaration was filed or the goods whose identity is recognized. The identity between the goods reported by an export declaration and the goods actually exported after customs clearance is recognized shall be determined on the basis of the difference between the two 10 unit classification codes under the "Customs and Statistics Integration Schedules" which is the ten unit classification system publicly notified by the Ministry of Strategy and Finance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do1564, Jan. 27, 2006). In other words, the name of the attached crime list as indicated in the lower judgment does not mean any goods for which the Defendant submitted a transport declaration as requested by a chain operator, and the circumstances leading up to the introduction of the export declaration as to the goods in question, such as clothes code.