(b) disguised importation and elimination of duty on duty-free goods;

(b)the crime of evasion of customs duties shall be established where a person imports goods free of duty by undergoing the prescribed procedure with a fluor's fluor's fluor's fluor's fluor's fluor's f

1. As to the prosecutor's appeal

In the reasoning of the judgment below, it is hard to conclude that the defendants carried the share of the goods to be borne by the defendant 3 as well as the goods of six boxes, other than those of six boxes, which are the kind, quantity, market price, etc. of the goods in the indictment, are the goods cleared by disguised entry of the goods in front of this article on February 25, 1976. In light of the records, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendants were evaded customs duties and defense taxes on the goods (as part of the crime, the defendants are not acquitted in the main sentence), and the records are consistent with the evidence cited by the court below, and there is no violation of law such as theory of lawsuit in the evidence preparation, since there is no basis to conclude that the goods of six boxes, other than six boxes, are the goods of six boxes, and the goods are the goods cleared by disguised entry of the goods in the indictment.

2. As to Defendant 1’s appeal

A. In several concurrent crimes, the court of appeal may not judge the portion of the non-guilty without the prosecutor's appeal in the case where only the defendant appealed against the non-guilty portion in the case where the defendant was found guilty on the part of the non-guilty portion. However, in the case where only one of the crimes is found guilty on the part of the non-guilty portion, even though the defendant appealed against the non-guilty portion, the appeal shall be filed in whole. In this regard, the judgment of the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the facts that the non-indicted 1's customs clearance of the non-indicted 629,774 won and the defense 22,708 won through disguised customs clearance of the non-indicted 1's goods and the non-indicted 1's goods and the non-indicted 2,3's goods and the non-indicted 1's goods, which are the directors of the above migrant portion, and the non-indicted 629,74,7278 won and the non-indicted 1's defense defense measures are not timely justified.

B. Even if the goods are imported through the prescribed procedures for the entry into the country's moving cargo, the customs duties shall be paid on the imported goods, because it is not the other person's moving cargo, and if the goods are imported by the other person's moving cargo in disguised manner, the crime of evading customs duties shall be established. According to the records, it can be justified that there was a prior consultation between the defendant 3 and the customs officer about the illegal appraisal of the goods as used goods in the process of determining the new goods among the goods imported by the director cargo as used goods and cleared the exempted customs, so the decision of the court below to this purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to customs duties, such as the theory of lawsuit, or in the incomplete deliberation.

C. Reviewing records, we agree with the measures of the court below that the defendant had a criminal intent to evade customs duties, and it cannot be said that there is an error of law such as the theory of litigation on the preparation of evidence that has gone through the process, and the assertion of mistake of fact that there is no criminal intention is clear that it does not constitute a legitimate ground for objection under Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and therefore, the theory of this issue

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

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)