1. Summary of the facts charged in this case and the judgment of the court below

The summary of the facts charged of the instant case is as follows: “The Defendant: (a) purchased agricultural products from Nonindicted 1 on July 2, 2004 at the international passenger terminal parking lot for Pyeongtaek-si without filing an import declaration; (b) obtained 545,00 won from the head of the relevant customs office while pretending to carry them into the Republic of Korea without filing an import declaration; and (c) submitted to the head of the relevant customs office an import declaration form for the purpose of collecting agricultural products within the permissible scope of inspection by either Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2, etc., and subsequently, submitted an import declaration form for the purpose of obtaining agricultural products from Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2 to July 23, 2004; and (d) subsequently, it constitutes an excess of the permissible scope of inspection by the importer of agricultural products under the control of the Republic of Korea, including Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2, who purchased agricultural products under the control of the Republic of Korea, to ensure that the importer of agricultural products under the control of the instant case was exempt from customs clearance.”

2. The judgment of this Court

The above judgment of the court below is not acceptable for the following reasons.

Article 241 (1) of the Customs Act provides that the name, standard, quantity and price of the relevant goods and other matters prescribed by Presidential Decree shall be reported to the head of the relevant customs office. Article 241 (2) of the Customs Act provides that "personal effects, consignments or unaccompanied goods, goods exempted from customs duties under Articles 91 through 94, 96 and 97 (1) of the Customs Act may be omitted or declared in a simplified manner prescribed by Presidential Decree (hereinafter referred to as "Simplified import declaration") for personal effects carried by travelers" and Article 241 (2) of the Customs Act shall be stated in 3-1 of the Customs Act; Article 96 subparagraph 1 of the Customs Act provides that "this provision shall apply only to travelers' personal effects carried by such travelers at the time of their entry into and departure from the Korea Customs Service;" Article 20-1 of the Customs Act provides that "No. 2 of the Customs Act and the head of the relevant customs office may exempt them from customs duties after their entry into and departure from the Republic of Korea Customs Service."

Article 2-2 of the Customs Duties Act provides that travelers who possess goods as stipulated in Article 2-2 of the above notification shall not use tax-free routes and shall use customs inspection routes (Article 3-9). In full view of the relevant provisions, among goods as stipulated in Article 2-2 of the above notification, including "commercial goods brought into Korea for sale" (Article 2-2(1)3 of the notification), the commercial goods do not constitute "personal effects of travelers" as stated in the above notification (Article 2-2(1) of the Customs Duties Act, and Article 1-4(2) of the above notification as amended on March 26, 200.1, Article 20 of the Customs Duties Act provides that the act of purchasing such goods shall not be deemed as "free travelers' belongings" (Article 2-2(1) of the Customs Duties Act as amended on March 27, 2004.1) and it shall not be deemed as legitimate for the head of the relevant customs office to carry with travelers's personal belongings or personal belongings, and it shall not be deemed as appropriate for the sale price of such goods.

Despite the above legal principles, the court below held that, in case where Bosia submitted a consumer's personal belongings report with agricultural products not exceeding 50 kilograms per person within the scope of the customs clearance pursuant to the relevant provisions of the above notice and brought them into the Republic of Korea after completing customs clearance, there is no special circumstance where Non-Indicted 1 and Non-Indicted 2 et al. conspired with Bosia in collusion with the above Bosia in order for them to carry the agricultural products purchased in China to be carried in by dividing and carry the agricultural products, and they can be viewed as a real importer again in the Republic of Korea, even if they carried the above agricultural products for the purpose of sale, it cannot be said that the import declaration under Article 241 (1) of the Customs Act was not completed, and thus, even if the defendant acquired them, it cannot be deemed that the goods imported without the declaration was acquired. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of the law as to import declaration and the remaining decision of the court below which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-dam (Presiding Justice)