[2] The case holding that the legal error under Article 16 of the Criminal Code does not constitute a mistake on the sole basis of the fact that the Republic of Korea, Japan, a permanent resident of Japan, did not purchase the goods for the purpose of profit-making or mistake that it would not make a declaration of duty at the time

[2] The case holding that the legal error under Article 16 of the Criminal Code does not constitute a mistake on the sole basis of the fact that the Republic of Korea, Japan, a permanent resident of Japan, did not purchase customs goods for profit-making purposes, or mistake that it would not make a declaration at the time of entry into Korea

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

According to the provisions of Articles 284(1), 311, 312, and 318 of the Customs Act, the Commissioner of the Korea Customs Service or the head of the relevant customs office may take a notice disposition against any customs offender, and when the circumstances of the crime are deemed to be imprisonment, he shall immediately bring an accusation against such customs offender, and when it is deemed that the customs offender is financially incapable of complying with the notice, or that it is difficult to serve any notice due to the impossibility of identifying his domicile and residence and other reasons, he shall promptly bring an accusation against such customs offender. In full view of these provisions, the issue of whether to impose the notice shall be left at the discretion of the Commissioner of the Korea Customs Service or the head of the relevant customs office, and therefore, the fact that the customs offender or the head of the relevant customs office files an accusation without taking the notice disposition against such customs offender does not constitute unlawful

In the same purport, the judgment of the court below that the instant accusation by the head of Incheon Airport customs office and the instant indictment based thereon are legitimate is just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged in the

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

Article 16 of the Criminal Act provides that an act of misunderstanding that one's act does not constitute a crime under Acts and subordinate statutes shall not be punishable only when there is a justifiable ground for misunderstanding. It does not mean a simple legal site, but it is generally accepted that an act of misunderstanding generally constitutes a crime but, in his special circumstances, it does not constitute a crime as permitted by Acts and subordinate statutes, and it does not punish a person if there is a justifiable ground for misunderstanding. (See Supreme Court Decision 94Do365 delivered on April 15, 194, etc.) In addition, the circumstance that the defendant, as a re-sect with permanent residence of Japan, purchased the instant goods for commercial purposes, not for purchasing the instant goods, or made a mistake that he did not file a declaration of customs duties at the time of entering Korea does not constitute a legal error under Article 16 of the Criminal

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no violation of law as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. As to the third ground for appeal

In this case where a fine is sentenced, the reason that the sentence imposed on the defendant is too excessive and unfair cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal in light of the provisions of Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)