2. The Defendants, who is the representative director of Defendant B, evaded customs duties of approximately KRW 53,70,000 by reducing and reporting the import price of the Chinese clothing over 50 times for three years and nine months, and filed an import declaration by manipulating the import price of the Vietnam's clothing at a lower level than KRW 200,000 through 20 times for one year and four months.

The instant crime is likely to be subject to criticism against the legislative intent of the Customs Act with a view to contributing to the development of the national economy by ensuring appropriate imposition and collection of customs duties, and customs clearance for imported and exported goods and securing import of customs duties.

The period and frequency of crimes, customs duties evaded and the amount of import prices manipulationd are not many.

The motive for the instant crime is also not good to reduce customs duties or to reduce value-added taxes.

This is disadvantageous to the Defendants.

On the other hand, the Defendants paid both customs duties and additional duties evaded.

Defendant

A is against his own mistake in depth, and there is no criminal record other than those punished by two times as a fine before 1998.

This is favorable to the defendants.

In full view of the above circumstances, Defendant A’s age, sexual conduct, environment, and circumstances after the commission of the crime, and all the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant case’s records and changes, the lower court’s sentencing against the Defendants is too unreasonable.

As Defendant A lacks knowledge of customs law, the defense counsel entrusted the duty of tax return to practical workers, resulting in preventing the crime of this case, and sentenced to a fine because the amount of tax evasion is relatively minor.