The 35 days of detention before this judgment is sentenced shall be included in the above sentence against Defendant 1.

A penalty of KRW 855,472,575 shall be additionally collected from Defendant 1.

Defendant 2 shall be ordered to pay an amount equivalent to the above fine to Defendant 2.

1. Defendant 1:

A. In the case of importing goods for the purpose of sale in the Republic of Korea, the head of the relevant customs office shall file an import declaration on the relevant goods, notwithstanding the fact that the import declaration is required for the goods for the purpose of self-use; however, it is possible to import goods by means of mail import in the case of goods less than US dollars 100,00,00 without an import declaration; by using the fact that it is possible to import goods by means of special shipping companies, a small heavy weight vessel part can be imported at a price lower than the actual purchase price; and without filing an import declaration, an exporter is requested to prepare a invoice at a price lower than the actual purchase price; and without filing an import declaration in the manner of pretending goods for self-use, an import declaration is made on August 6, 2001; 2,383,478 won of the domestic wholesale price at the Incheon Airport Customs office; 24 won of the goods, such as SRING’s 1,515,892 won of the goods; 36556,5755 won of the domestic wholesale price

B. Around June 2, 2003, the Incheon Airport Customs: (a) imported vessel parts of the amount equivalent to 440.95 U.S. customs; (b) reported and imported on 38.07 U.S. oil (EUR) as if imported; and (c) subsequently evaded customs duties of KRW 46,180 equivalent to KRW 57,250 with a false declaration of the customs value in order to affect the determination of the amount of customs duties; and (b) from the above date to January 24, 2006, the customs duties of KRW 31,830,266 of the aggregate amount equivalent to KRW 397,878,327 of the difference by filing a false declaration of the customs value and filing a false declaration of the customs value with the same method in total 81 times from the above date to January 24, 2006;

2. Defendant 2 corporation

Defendant 1, the representative director of Defendant 2 Co., Ltd., imported parts of the ship without filing an import declaration on the business of Defendant 2 Co., Ltd., and committed an offense by evading customs duties.

1. Legal statement of the witness Nonindicted 1, 2, and 3

1. Statement made by Defendant 1 in the second protocol of the trial;

1. The statement made by Nonindicted Party 1 in the sixth trial record

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol concerning Defendant 1;

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol against Defendant 1 (Provided, That part of the third suspect interrogation protocol);

1. The prosecutor’s statement on Nonindicted 4, 5, and 6

1. The police statement of Nonindicted 4

1. Each protocol of seizure, list of seizure, each investigation report (for the purpose of securing and reporting the interpretation of the right of customs authority, securing and reporting the remittance documents, for the preparation of a list of offenses, revision of the list of offenses, and subsequent revision) and expert evidence;

① The crime of non-import under the Customs Act is established when an act of bringing in goods which must be imported through lawful customs clearance procedures without declaration or recognition thereof is established. Thus, in order to rate the Defendants into the domestic market for importing vessel parts from manufacturers of vessel parts of Japan, etc. without declaration, the Defendants’ act of bringing in the domestic market without declaration and only when they obtain awareness thereof. The Defendants’ special consignment goods imported are exempted from customs clearance by legitimate list declaration. Postal items imported also refer to the receipt of goods whose customs clearance has been completed through normal customs clearance by the Seoul International Postal Office, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant imported goods without declaration from Defendant 1 to the domestic market for sale without declaration. According to Article 28(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Customs Act, the domestic market price of the goods imported from the domestic market for sale without declaration cannot be deemed to be an amount equivalent to the domestic wholesale price of the goods imported by the Defendant to the domestic market for sale without declaration. Thus, according to the domestic market price of the goods imported by the Defendant to the domestic market for sale without declaration at the domestic market price of the goods.

2. Determination on the first argument

A. Relevant statutes

(1) Customs Act;

Article 241 (1) of the Customs Act provides that "When it is intended to export, import or return goods, the name, standard, quantity and price of the goods concerned, and other matters prescribed by the Presidential Decree shall be reported to the head of the relevant customs office." Article 241 (2) of the Customs Act provides that "personal effects, consignments or unaccompanied goods, goods exempted from customs duties under Articles 91 through 94, 96 and 97 (1) may be omitted from the declaration under paragraph (1) or made in such a simplified manner as prescribed by the Commissioner of the Korea Customs Service under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree." Article 94 subparagraphs 3 and 4 of the same Act provides that "any postal items that are prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy as commercial samples or advertising goods, those that are received by Korean residents," and Article 256 (1) of the Customs Act provides that "any postal items, the import or return of which is required by the sender pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (2) of the same Article shall be exempted from customs duties."

(2) Enforcement Decree of the Customs Act

Article 246 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Customs Act provides that "any person who intends to file an import, import or return declaration under Article 241 (1) of the Act shall file a declaration thereon stating the kind, number and number of packages, and the name, size, quantity, price, etc. of the relevant goods with the head of the relevant customs office." Article 246 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Customs Act provides that "any consignment or unaccompanied goods, etc. prescribed by the Commissioner of the Korea Customs Service as deemed necessary for prompt customs clearance, such as mail (excluding those falling under Article 258 (2) of the Act) and other documents and small-value duty-free goods, etc. shall be omitted pursuant to Article 241 (2) of the Act." Article 241 (4) of the Enforcement Decree provides that "any person shall be deemed to have accepted an import declaration on the relevant goods at the time of completion of the inspection, and Article 261 subparagraph 3 of the Enforcement Decree provides that "any goods paid or payable for customs clearance shall meet the standards prescribed by Presidential Decree."

(3) Enforcement Rule of the Customs Act

Article 45(2)1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Customs Act provides that “The total dutiable value of the relevant goods shall not exceed 150,000 won (10,000 won until the Enforcement Rule of the Customs Act was amended by Ordinance No. 375 of March 30, 2004) for the relevant goods exempted from customs duties pursuant to Article 94 subparag. 4 of the Act.”

(4) Notice of import clearance handling

Article 241(2) and Article 258 of the Customs Act, Article 246(2) and Article 261 of the Enforcement Decree of the Customs Duties Act provides for the clearance procedures for the goods to be brought into Korea for free customs clearance (Article 8 of the Customs Act) and the items subject to customs clearance (Article 93 subparag. 10 of the Customs Act) belonging to the head of a foreign country located in the Republic of Korea and his family members and customs officers (Article 93 subparag. 3-1 of the Customs Act). Article 241(2) and 258 of the Customs Duties Act provides for the clearance of 3-1 of the Customs Duties Act, the general clearance declaration for the goods to be received by a resident and the list of goods whose customs clearance clearance is restricted by 60,000 U.S. dollars (Article 3-1 of the Customs Duties Act). Article 26-1 of the Customs Duties Act provides for the list of goods to be returned to the head of a customs office for free customs clearance (Article 60-2).3-1 of the imported goods).

(5) Notice on the handling of customs clearance for express shipments

With respect to customs clearance procedures for express shipments, where matters necessary for customs clearance are determined, a notice on the handling of customs clearance for express shipments (established by the Korea Customs Service No. 2003-1, Jan. 22, 2003) provides that “the prices of goods among those that are used or exempted by a domestic resident shall be US$ 100 (60 U.S. dollars prior to the amendment of March 25, 2004) and not subject to the confirmation by the customs collector under Article 226(2) of the Customs Act shall be the list of special goods for customs clearance; the price of goods shall be between US$100 and US2,000 and those subject to the confirmation by the customs collector under Article 226(2) of the Act shall not be subject to the confirmation by the customs collector; the list of goods subject to the declaration by the customs collector shall be separate from the list of goods subject to the declaration by the customs collector under Article 226(2) of the Act (amended by the Korea Customs Service prior to March 23, 2004).

B. Determination as to whether the goods imported by the Defendants through international mail or special transmission companies are imported after filing a declaration under Article 241 of the Customs Act

(1) According to the above evidence, Defendant 1 may request an exporter to prepare a invoice at a price lower than the actual purchase price (in the case of self-owned goods, the price at which customs clearance is possible) while importing parts for repair of a small heavy vessel, even for sale purposes. In the case of import by mail, Defendant 1 cleared customs by using the “simplified import declaration” or “import declaration agenda” in which the head of a post office submits a “mail list” in accordance with Article 3-4-1 of the Public Notice on the Handling of Customs Clearance Affairs. In the case of import through a special shipping company, Defendant 1 cleared customs (customs clearance) using the “simplified import declaration” in which a special shipping company submits a customs list pursuant to Articles 3-2-4 and 3-2-6 of the Public Notice on the Handling of Customs Clearance Affairs.

(2) As such, in the event that commercial goods imported for sale are cleared through the “import declaration agenda” or “simplified import declaration”, whether such goods can be deemed imported through a declaration under Article 241 of the Customs Act, and as seen above, in full view of various relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, an importer shall make a regular import declaration, regardless of revenue stamps or revenue stamps through a special transmission company, and if it is apparent that such goods are used during customs clearance, customs officers should take measures to regulate customs clearance (whether customs clearance is exempt or on-site customs clearance). Thus, even if customs officers did not know such fact, customs clearance through the “simplified import declaration agenda” or “Simplified import declaration” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do8786, Mar. 25, 2005) cannot be deemed as lawful customs clearance (see, e.g., Decision 2004Do8786, Mar. 25, 2005).

C. Determination as to whether Defendant 1 had awareness of the unreported import

Then, the following facts are acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence: ① Defendant 1 indirectly participated in the import business of vessel components while working for a company carrying on the maritime transportation business of Honam tank from 1975; since since 1997, Defendant 2 was in direct charge of the import business of vessel components; ② Defendant 1 appears to have considerable knowledge and experience in the import clearance procedure of vessel components; ② Defendant 1 requested exporters to prepare invoices at a price lower than the actual purchase price for prompt customs clearance when importing vessel components at a price lower than that of the vessel components; ② Defendant 1 appears to have stated that there was no need to enter the import clearance procedure of vessel components in the above list (in the case of postal items) or the customs clearance procedure (in the case of consignments), and the price of imported goods should be stated in the list of vessel components for which the import declaration procedure was submitted to the exporters, and the fact that there is no need to enter the import declaration procedure in the list of vessel components at least for the purpose of international customs clearance.

D. If so, the first argument of the Defendants and the defense counsel is without merit.

3. Judgment on the second argument

(2) Article 266 of the Enforcement Decree of the Customs Duties Act provides for "domestic wholesale price" which serves as the basis for the value of goods imported without an import declaration if all or part of such goods cannot be forfeited from an offender; and such domestic wholesale price means the price at which a wholesaler purchases imported goods from a trader and openly sells them at the domestic wholesale market in a fair transaction manner. Such domestic wholesale price means the price at which the goods arrive at the price of the goods, including customs duties, customs procedure costs, and appropriate profits of the company. The computation based on "the market price table" under the domestic wholesale price calculation method, which is calculated based on the notice of the determination of the customs value of the imported goods, is also based on the price at which the goods arrive or the appraised price of the goods imported, and as long as the domestic wholesale price calculated by the defendant is calculated based on the price at which the goods are actually imported, the domestic wholesale price at which the goods are actually sold at the domestic wholesale price at the domestic wholesale price at the same time shall not be calculated based on the revised price at which the goods are actually sold at the domestic wholesale price at each time.

Defendant 1: Articles 269(2)1, 241(1), and 270(1)1 of the Customs Act; each choice of imprisonment

Defendant 2: Articles 269(2)1, 241(1), 270(1)1, and 280 of the Customs Act

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Defendant 1: former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

Defendant 2: The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and Article 278(1) of the Customs Act (Article 38(1)2 of the Criminal Act does not apply to the provisions of Article 38(1)2 of the Criminal Act, and the determination of each fine for each of the crimes

1. Determination of punishment (Defendant 2 Stock Company);

(a) 10,00 won for each of the crimes listed in paragraph (1) (i) above, 19,31, 45, 145, 378, or 391 above, and 50,000 won for each of the crimes listed in paragraph (1) above, and the remaining crimes listed in paragraph (2) of the first list of crimes listed in paragraph (1) above, and for each of the crimes listed in paragraph (2) of the second list of crimes listed in the holding;

(b) Total amount of 23,610,000 won (23,550,000 won (471 x 50,000 won) + 60,000 won (6 x 10,000 won);

1. To include days of pre-trial detention (Defendant 1);

Article 57 of the Criminal Act

1. Collection (Defendant 1);

Article 282(3) and (2) of the Customs Act

1. Order of provisional payment (Defendant 2 corporation);

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

There is no criminal history against the defendant, and the defendant has committed the crime of evading customs duties among the criminal facts of this case, such as the confession of the crime and the payment of the evaded customs duties.

However, considering the fact that not only the cost of goods imported without an import declaration exceeds 500 million won, but also the fact that, as seen earlier, it is evident that the method of import is likely to undergo a regular general import declaration regardless of whether the method of import was by mail or through an enterprise with special transmission, it is obvious that the defendant has been aware of the fact that the method of import has to undergo a regular general import declaration regardless of whether it was by mail or through the enterprise with special transmission, the defendant should be sentenced to punishment for the defendant, and the crime is not good, such as denying it, and the above favorable sentencing factors

2. Defendant 2 corporation

Although the volume and amount of goods imported without filing a report as above are not significant, the punishment shall be imposed on Defendant 1, who is the representative director, as well as the punishment imposed on Defendant 1, who is about KRW 850,000,000,000, and the actual form of Defendant 2, in the case of Defendant 2, can be seen as Defendant 1’s personal business.

[Attachment Form 5]

Judges Cha fixed-term