1. As to the ground of appeal on the shipment of postal items

A. In order to import goods, the name, standard, quantity and price of the relevant goods and other matters prescribed by Presidential Decree shall be reported to the head of a customs office pursuant to Article 241(1) of the former Customs Act (amended by Act No. 10424, Dec. 30, 2010; hereinafter the same).

Article 240(1)1 of the former Customs Act provides that foreign goods and postal items delivered by a postal service agency to an addressee shall be deemed legally imported pursuant to the provisions of this Act and customs duties, etc. shall not be collected separately. Article 241(2) provides that in cases where postal items, personal effects, consignments, etc. are the same as postal items, consignments, etc., the above declaration may be omitted or filed in a simplified manner prescribed by the Commissioner of the Korea Customs Service, as

However, Article 258(2) of the former Customs Act provides that, where a postal item is approved for exportation or importation pursuant to Article 11 of the Foreign Trade Act or meets the standards prescribed by Presidential Decree, the addressee or sender of the relevant postal item (hereinafter “special postal item”) shall file a declaration pursuant to Article 241. Accordingly, Article 246(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Customs Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21305, Feb. 4, 2009; hereinafter the same) excludes a postal item subject to the omission of declaration pursuant to Article 241(2) of the former Customs Act from the subject matter of declaration, and the public notice of “former processing of import clearance of an international postal item” pursuant to delegation of Article 241(2) of the former Customs Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2009-58, Aug. 20, 2009) is excluded from the special postal item subject to simplified customs clearance, and Article 42(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Customs Act provides for the method of declaration prior to arrival.

In light of the language, purport, etc. of these provisions, the special mail under Article 258(2) of the former Customs Act is excluded from those subject to the omission of an import declaration, and thus, the import declaration should be filed in principle. Thus, it shall not be deemed that the lawful import legal provision on the "mail delivered by a postal service office to an addressee" under Article 240(1)1 of the former Customs Act does not apply to the special mail under Article 258(2) of the former Customs Act.

Meanwhile, criminal facts should be proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). However, the determination of the selection and probative value of evidence conducted on the premise of fact-finding belongs to the discretion of the fact-finding court unless it exceeds the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence (Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act).

B. The court below found Defendant 1 guilty on the ground that each of the instant seeds was confirmed by the customs collector pursuant to Articles 226(1), 241, and 258(2) of the former Customs Act and was subject to import declaration under the Customs Act, and the name, standard, quantity, and price of the relevant goods must be reported to the customs collector with the goods inspected by the National Plant Quarantine Agency (certified customs broker, etc.) or with the goods inspected by the phytosanitary officer of the National Plant Quarantine Agency. In full view of the circumstances stated in the judgment, including this, it is reasonable to deem that Defendant 1 was aware that each of the instant seeds was subject to import declaration under the Customs Act, and even if Defendant 1 was deemed to have failed to file an import declaration due to his failure to receive customs guidance from the customs collector, it is difficult to view that each of the instant seeds was permitted by the customs collector and that there was a justifiable reason to mislead him to do not constitute a crime.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the import declaration, intentional act, awareness of illegality, and the likelihood of supplementing the import declaration, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. As to the ground of appeal on the carry-in part

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on import declaration under the Customs Act, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Shin Young-chul (Presiding Justice)