[대외무역법위반][미간행]
Defendant 1 and 1
Defendants
Completion Officer
Cheongju District Court Decision 2009 High Court Decision 391 Decided May 25, 2009
All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Legal principles
Although Defendant 1’s act does not constitute an element of Article 38 of the Foreign Trade Act, the lower court convicted the Defendants. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
B. Unreasonable sentencing
The sentence of the lower court (each fine of KRW 3 million for the accused) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principle
The defendants asserted the same purport in the court below, and the court below held that the defendant 1's act constitutes "the method of falsely indicating the country of origin on goods, etc." under Article 38 of the Foreign Trade Act. The judgment of the court below is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles, and therefore the defendants' assertion is without merit.
B. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing
When the Defendants were unable to obtain from the chamber of commerce and industry a certificate of origin as Korea in the same case as the red powder of this case, the Defendants were unable to obtain a certificate of origin as Korea, and they were aware of the intent of the importing company of low-cost domestic red powder of the Republic of Korea and exported red powder powder with the country of origin falsely entered in the certificate of origin as required by the Defendants, and Defendant 1 had the record of being fined as a violation of the Agricultural and Fishery Products Quality Control Act, taking into account the sentencing conditions under Article 51 of the Criminal Act as shown in the argument of this case, such as the fact that the country of origin was not originating and there was a record of being fined as a violation of the Agricultural and Fishery Products Quality Control Act. Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion is
3. Conclusion
Therefore, since the defendants' appeal is without merit, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.
Judges Cho Dong-ho (Presiding Judge)