beta
(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.06.29 2016노4261

관세법위반등

Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B (Defendant B) did not know the items, quantity, etc. of the goods requested for transportation and prepared an export declaration as notified by Japan L LA. Thus, the lower court found Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case even though it did not falsely report the items, quantity, etc. of the exported goods. In so doing, it erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of each sentence sentenced by the lower court (defendant A: fine of KRW 25 million; fine of KRW 5 million; and fine of KRW 5 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following facts are acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below regarding Defendant B’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts. In other words, the Defendant: (a) upon receiving a request from an importer of Japan for the carriage of clothing from H (M operation) and delivery of export clothing from L; and (b) the Defendant presumed that the items requested from L are not the items requested from L even after the date on the basis of the fact that the items requested from L were “B”; and (c) the name of the goods was submitted to the customs office for an export declaration stating the export declaration stating the expected quantity, and the export declaration stating the export declaration stating the import declaration stating the expected quantity is accepted in advance; and (d) the Defendant’s export declaration using the incorrect export declaration, which was submitted in advance, can be sufficiently recognized when exporting the goods, and the name of the exported goods, etc. was falsely reported to the customs collector.

B. Determination 1 on the Defendants’ wrongful assertion of sentencing is recognized as follows: (a) Defendant A’s Defendant recognized the instant crime; (b) the practice formed between small-scale exporters appears to be infinitely followed; and (c) the initial offender.

However, the crime of this case is the item, quantity, etc. of the exported goods by the defendant who operates the clothing exporter.