관세법위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A Fines 20,000,000 won, Defendant V, Inc., a fine of KRW 10,000,000.
The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the punishment of the lower court [Defendant A: a fine of KRW 30 million, Defendant V Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant V”): a fine of KRW 20 million] is too unreasonable.
The prosecutor's (unfair sentencing) sentence of the lower court is too uncomfortable and unfair.
The grounds for appeal by authority shall be examined ex officio prior to the judgment.
Defendant
Article 27 of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning V of the lower court’s Criminal Procedure Act provides that “If the Defendant is a corporation, the representative thereof shall represent the litigation.
The term "representative" means a representative in the registration of a juristic person, not a person who actually operates a juristic person.
Therefore, as long as the representative exists in a corporation, it is a principle that the representative represents the litigation of the corporation and attends the trial date.
However, if the defendant is a corporation, a proxy may be allowed to be present (proviso of Article 276 of the Criminal Procedure Act), and in this case, a document evidencing the fact that the representative authority has been granted to the defendant's agent must be submitted to the court (Article 126 of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure). According to the records, the certificate of the whole registered matters of the defendant's defendant's V is registered as the representative director of the defendant V from the time of the prosecution of the case to the date of the prosecution of the case. However, the court below held that the defendant A appeared as the representative of the defendant V on the date of the public trial of the court below and the public trial was conducted,
In other words, in the instant litigation procedure, the O, the representative director of Defendant V, must represent the Defendant V’s procedural acts as the representative. However, the lower court rendered a judgment by proceeding the trial while only A, who did not receive the power of representation from Defendant V, was present at the trial date.
Therefore, in the judgment of the court below, the legal procedure against Defendant V is in violation of the law and the legal principle as to the representative of the legal procedure.