[2] Whether the object of preliminary act of evading customs duties is subject to forfeiture under Article 198 of the Customs Act (affirmative)

[2] The act of preparing for the purpose of evading customs duties is punished in accordance with Article 180(1) of the Customs Act in accordance with Article 182(2) of the same Act. Thus, when there is such preliminary act, it constitutes "the case of Article 198(2) of the same Act, which provides for the confiscation of illegal goods of a customs offender" under Article 198(2) of the same Act, and it does not deviate from confiscation on the ground that there is a legitimate payment of customs duty.

1. On the first ground for appeal

According to the provisions of Article 198(2) and (3) of the Customs Act, when it is impossible to confiscate all or part of the goods to be confiscated, the amount equivalent to the domestic wholesale price at the time of the offense of the goods not confiscated shall be collected from the offender. The term "domestic wholesale price" refers to the price at which the goods arrive at the cost of the goods, including taxes such as customs duties, customs procedure costs, and appropriate profits of the company, which includes the price at which the goods arrive at the cost of the goods. (See Supreme Court Decision 93Do164 delivered on March 23, 1993)

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below calculated the domestic wholesale price of the instant flexible card by the method of market price concentration table (based on appraisal price, calculating the domestic wholesale price by aggregating customs duties, etc. on the basis of appraisal price), and maintained the judgment of the court of first instance that calculated the amount of the instant additional collection on the basis of this, on the grounds as stated in its reasoning. In light of the records, such recognition and determination by the court below are reasonable, and there is no error of law that misleads the market price as alleged

2. On the second ground for appeal

The act of preparing for the purpose of evading customs duties is punished in accordance with Article 182(2) of the Customs Act in accordance with Article 180(1) of the same Act, and when there is such preliminary act, it constitutes "cases under Article 180(2) of the same Act that provides for the forfeiture of customs offenses" (see Supreme Court Decision 90Do1576 delivered on August 28, 1990), and it does not deviate from the forfeiture because payment of legitimate customs duties is made later. Accordingly, the court below's decision on the same purport that the court below cannot be forfeited through customs clearance and disposition under Article 29,952 of the same Act, which is the object of the crime of evading customs duties. Thus, it is reasonable to impose an amount equivalent to the domestic wholesale price at the time of the crime of evading customs duties, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to additional collection, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)