The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 282(3) of the Customs Act provides that if it is impossible to confiscate all or part of the goods subject to forfeiture pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2) of the same Article, the amount equivalent to the “domestic wholesale price” at the time of the offense of the goods subject to forfeiture shall be collected from the offender.

Here, “Domestic wholesale price” refers to a price which a wholesaler purchases goods from a trade business entity and openly sells them through a fair transaction method in the domestic wholesale market (Article 266 of the Enforcement Decree of the Customs Act). The price of the goods arrival includes taxes such as customs duties, customs procedure expenses, and corporate reasonable price (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8401, Dec. 28, 2007). Meanwhile, the method of calculating the domestic wholesale price according to the market price set forth in the regional wholesale rate table is to calculate customs duties, etc., customs procedure expenses, and domestic wholesale price including corporate appropriateness, based on the price at the port of entry into the port of entry into the port of entry into the port of entry into the port of entry into the port of entry into the port of entry into the port of entry into the market of Korea. However, if material evidence exists that the price calculated by such method differs from the actual domestic wholesale price, it is unlawful to calculate the domestic wholesale price in such a way to obtain the confiscation of the goods (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Do2).

2. The first instance trial is to keep domestic melting 7,00 km from among the smuggling imported by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant smuggling”).