[2] The case holding that green teas and yellow teas imported for bath bath bath bath use do not fall under the category of goods for bath purposes, such as the Customs Clearance Manual by item of the HS and other bath products

[2] The case holding that the green tea and yellow tea imported for bath bath bath bath bath bath bath bath bath products do not fall under the category of bath products or other bath products under the export clearance manual of HS even if they were imported for bath bath bath purposes, since they do not seem to be different from those of the nature, function, form, manufacturing method, and their original use at the time of import declaration, such as melting tea and yellow tea compared with drinking melting tea, etc.

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

Since the green tea and yellow tea imported by the defendant from China (hereinafter referred to as the "green tea and yellow tea of this case") are not food under the Food Sanitation Act, but industrial products used as a bath bath for brine, it falls under other bath products (tax rate of 8%) on the same manual table, not on the Customs Clearance Manual by item of HS (tax rate of 513.6%). The actual price of the green tea and yellow tea of this case stated in the indictment includes personnel expenses, publicity expenses, and exit expenses of Chinese local employees in calculating the above actual price, the above expenses must be deducted in calculating the above actual price. However, on the premise that the green tea and yellow tea of this case fall under other green teas listed in the above Customs Manual, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles by misapprehending the legal principles as to the omission of customs duties by applying 513.6% of the above actual price to the above actual price or by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment sentenced by the court below (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. As to mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

(1) The nature of the green tea and the red tea in this case

In light of the evidence duly admitted and adopted by the court below, the defendant imported the green tea and yellow tea of this case from China for the purpose of bath bath bath bath, and supplied them for bath bath, the customs duty rate of 513.6% (519.3% in 2003), and the customs duty rate of 513.6% in 2003.20-200 in HS item No. 3307, 2005, and other green teas on the import and export clearance manual by item of HS in 2004 and 2005 can be acknowledged.

According to Article 16 of the Customs Act, customs duties are imposed on the goods according to their nature and quantity at the time of filing an import declaration. The time of determining the object of taxation shall be determined in accordance with the tariff schedule, etc., after taking into account all the objective elements, such as the nature, function, form, and form of the goods at the time of filing an import declaration. According to the records, it does not seem that the nature, function, form, manufacturing method, and original usage of the green tea and yellow tea in this case at the time of filing an import declaration are different from those of drinking tea. Thus, even if the green tea and yellow tea in this case were imported for the purpose of adding them to bath, it cannot be deemed that the green tea and yellow tea in this case constitute bath products merely 8% of the customs duty rate (the same shall not apply to cases where the green tea in this case and yellow tea in this case were used for bath bath bath, but physical changes in the manufacturing process and its function can no longer be seen as being entirely different from those of drinking tea in this case (the same shall apply to this case).

(2) Whether the calculation of the actual price of the green tea and red tea in the instant case is appropriate

The actual price in the bill of indictment concerning the green tea and yellow tea of this case includes personnel expenses, promotion expenses, and withdrawal expenses of local personnel in China, so there is no evidence to acknowledge that the actual price should be deducted in calculating the above expenses. According to the statement in the statement in the statement in the statement in the statement in the statement in the statement in the statement in the statement in the statement in the statement in the statement in the statement in the statement in the statement in the statement in the statement in which the non-indicted 2 of tension No. 2 of this case was recorded separately in the statement in the statement in which the defendant prepared for some of the green tea and yellow tea of this case. The above statement in the statement in the statement in the statement in the statement in the judgment of the court below is prepared on the basis of the "material expenses" in which the defendant directly entered, and the actual price in the table in the attached sheet in the attached sheet in the

(3) Whether the lower court erroneously applied the rate of customs duty without obtaining any evidence on the instant red vehicle

As seen earlier, the court below held that the Defendant’s allegation that the Defendant’s customs duty rate of 513.6% on the other green vehicles was erroneous without putting the corresponding part of the HS-specific customs clearance manual on the red vehicles by evidence, and that the instant red vehicles was 20% of the customs duty rate of 513.6% on the other green vehicles, and that the instant red vehicles were 10% of the customs duty rate of 20% on the basis of the above facts. Although the court below, in the summary of the evidence, stated only a copy of the relevant manual of the HS-specific import customs clearance manual of the same manual (0.20-00) as to the import customs clearance manual of the HS-specific item, the court below rejected other evidence presented by the court below, namely, the Defendant’s statement of the suspect’s suspect examination protocol of the prosecution against the Defendant, and according to each of the statements in the import performance and appraisal statement, the customs duty rate of 20% on the goods stated in the annexed tariff 11,14% on the instant red vehicles.

B. On the issue of unfair sentencing

Although there are favorable circumstances for the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant has been sentenced three times to a fine, and there are no same criminal records, and that the profits acquired by the crime of this case are not many, and his mistake is divided, the defendant's act of evading customs duties by filing a declaration at a price much higher than the actual price to evade customs duties on the green tea and red tea of this case imported from China cannot be exempted from punishment corresponding thereto. The court below also seems to have determined punishment considering all the circumstances alleged by the defendant. Further, even if examining the circumstances leading to the crime of this case and the result thereof, even if the defendant's circumstances leading to the crime of this case and the various circumstances leading to the punishment conditions indicated in the records such as character, character, environment, criminal records, the defendant's behavior at the time of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime of this case are examined, it is not recognized that the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable, and therefore the above assertion

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Sung-sung (Presiding Judge) Kim Jong-tae