A. As to the violation of the Customs Act

Article 269(2)2 of the Customs Act provides that an import declaration shall be deemed not to have been filed, but shall be punished on the basis that the declaration is not filed, and the identity of the declared goods shall be determined comprehensively on the basis of whether the goods actually imported not only meet the tariff classification number, but also coincide with the contents of the customs declaration. Thus, the identity of the goods actually imported shall not be recognized as identical to the goods actually imported, and the judgment of the court below that acquitted the above crime is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. As to the violation of the Plant Protection Act

Defendant 4 and proxy employees, Nonindicted 3, and Nonindicted 4, who are warehouse employees, stated that they were subject to phytosanitary measures against an empty bean in lieu of Sailand. According to the status of Nonindicted 4’s entry/explication and the entry/explication of Nonindicted 4, the specifications of Lin-Sing shipment, the import clearance process information, etc., it can be acknowledged that there are different facts such as inventory quantity. Thus, the judgment of the court below acquitted

2. Summary of the facts charged

Defendant 1’s representative, Defendant 2’s representative, Defendant 6’s representative, Defendant 3’s director, Defendant 4’s bonded goods caretaker, Defendant 5’s corporation for the purpose of export and import of grains, etc., and Defendant 6’s corporation for the purpose of bonded transportation business.

(a) In the event that it is intended to export, import or return goods, mind that the name, standard, quantity, price, etc. of the relevant goods are reported to the head of the relevant customs office, and that such goods are sealed in bean, such as cooking, by means of filing a declaration on goods different from the actual

(1) Defendant 1:

On November 29, 2005, in the Pyeongtaek-si Customs Office located in Pyeongtaek-dong, and in the name of the defendant 5 corporation, in importing 100 tons in the name of the defendant 5 corporation, the inspection of which was completed in the column for the name of the imported goods at the time of import declaration (import declaration number omitted) shall be entered as if it had been imported 100 tons in the column for the name of the empty bean (Bk Harcot Bean) from that time until the 30th day of the same month, from that time until the 30th day of the same month, as shown in attached Table 1 to attached Table 4, the inspection of 579 tons in total (2.3 billion won at the market price of KRW 2.16 million) shall be imported as the Grand bean, and the inspection of which was completed in the name of the defendant 5 corporation;

(2) The facts of Defendants 1, 2, 3, and 4 are to make a false declaration as to the importation of the Katopia, Cheonggo, Cheonggo, and low-price, which are items excluded from the pre-assessment of tax, even though they were imported from China, as if they were imported from the pre-assessment of tax, and to import the Katopi, Cheonggo, Cheonggo, and Mago, which are kept in custody without shipping out of a bonded warehouse, after having completed import clearance procedures, through an import inspection of the Matopi, Cheonggo, and Mago which are stored without shipping out of the bonded warehouse;

(A) Around December 17, 2005, Defendant 2 operated by Defendant 6, a bonded warehouse located in Pyeongtaek-si (number omitted), Defendant 1 brought in 200 tons of the No.S. 200 tons of the No.S. 200 tons of the No.S. 200 tons of the B. 23 of the same month without taking the import clearance. In importing 200 tons of the No.S. 200 tons of the B. 200 tons of the B. 200 tons of the B. 23 of the same month, it was reported as having imported 20 tons of the B.S. 3, Defendant 2, 4, and 3, who had the L. Ga-si staff from the imported goods undergo the inspection of the No.S. 31 of the B. 200 tons of the B. 300 tons of the B.S. 200 tons of the B. 31st of the same month.

(B) On the 15th of the same month, in the bonded warehouse of the above defendant 6 corporation, the defendant 1 imported 100 tons of Kaiopia, 100 tons of Cheonggo, 100 tons of Cheonggo, and 100 tons of Cheonggo (bill of lading 3 omitted) on the 20th of the same month, the defendant 2, 4, and 3 reported as if they imported 100 tons of Kaiopia from the above office on the 20th of the same month, and reported as if they imported Kaiopia from the above office, and had the employees from the customs office from the inspection of the imported goods undergo the inspection of the Kaiopia installed in advance, not from the time on the 31st of the same month, from time to the 31st of the same month, the defendant 1 reported 1,060 tons of Kago, or 1,060 tons of Kapia in total by the above 13th of the same month.

B. Defendant 1 and 4 conspired,

(1) On December 25, 2005, at the bonded warehouse of the above defendant 6 corporation and at the bonded warehouse of the above defendant 6 corporation, imported and brought in 200 tons of China, and without good cause, without undergoing a phytosanitary officer’s inspection on the above post-Lese,

(2) On the 28th of the same month, the above defendant 6 corporation imported and brought in 200 tons of Chinese cooking 200 tons in bonded warehouses, and without good cause, undergo an inspection by a phytosanitary officer on the above cooking;

C. (1) Defendant 5 Company

(A) At the same time and place as described in paragraph (a), Defendant 1, and Defendant 3, an employee of the Defendant, in connection with the Defendant’s business, import of the Defendant’s total of 1,179 tons and total of 1,060 tons of the Congo (at a market price of 3.58,5980,000 won) by reporting it to the Spanan, the Kakape, or the Cheonggo;

(B) At the same date, time, place as described in Paragraph (b), and at the same time, Defendant 1, an employee of the Defendant, imported and brought in a total of 400 tons of China’s Republic of Korea with respect to the Defendant’s work, and without good cause, undergo a phytosanitary officer’s inspection on the above West without good cause;

(2) Defendant 6 corporation

(A) At the same time, at the same time, at the place as described in paragraph A(2) above, the Defendant 2 and 4, who is an employee of the Defendant, import a total of 600 metric tons and a total of 1,060 metric tons of the Congo, as above, in respect of the Defendant’s business, sealedly by filing a report on it with the Spanan, the Cartopia, or the Cheonggo;

(B) At the same date, time, place as described in Paragraph (b), and at the same time, Defendant 4, an employee of the Defendant, imported and brought in a total of 400 tons of China's Republic of Korea from China with respect to the Defendant's business, and did not undergo a phytosanitary officer's inspection on the above letters without justifiable grounds.

3. The judgment of the court below

The lower court acquitted the Defendants on the following grounds.

A. As to the violation of the Customs Act

The identity of the reported goods shall be determined by the 10-unit classification code under the Consolidated Tariff and Statistics Schedules. Since the Republic of Korea is the same as the 10-unit classification code for an empty bean (hereinafter referred to as “An empty bean”), the Kaiopia, Cheonggo, or the Sgoan, both of which are identical to the 10-unit classification code, it does not constitute imports that are different from the imported goods.

B. As to the violation of the Plant Protection Act

Only the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that there is no phytosanitary measure by changing the state bean and the west, and there is no other evidence to recognize it.

4. Judgment of the court below

A. As to the violation of the Customs Act

(1) As to the characteristic of the import declaration

In the case of exportation, the similarity between the goods reported on the import declaration and the goods actually cleared and exported is determined on the basis of whether it is identical with the 10-unit classification code specified in the Consolidated Tariff and Statistics Schedules (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do1564, Jan. 27, 2006). However, in the case of importation, customs duties shall be collected, and customs duties shall be different, and in the case of importation, customs duties shall not be determined solely with the classification code specified in the Consolidated Schedules. Accordingly, in determining the similarity between the goods reported on the import declaration and the goods actually imported through customs, customs duties and customs clearance procedures shall be deemed the same standard.

(2) (a) As to the identity of the tariff classification and tariff rate

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, as recognized by the court below, an empty Madan, Kaodan, Cheonggo and Madalan, and Madalan fall under “other” in both the rises in the annexed Schedules, and the rate of customs duty can be recognized as the same facts.

(B) As to the identity of the pre-tax examination procedure

The proviso of Article 38(2) of the Customs Act (amended by Act No. 8852 of Feb. 29, 2008; hereinafter the same) provides that "where it is deemed difficult to secure taxation claims on the reported amount of customs duties, or it is deemed inappropriate to examine the amount of customs duties after accepting the import declaration, the goods prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy shall be examined before the import declaration is accepted," and accordingly, the "Public Notice on the Handling of Tax Examination" has been designated as the goods subject to prior examination procedure and examination, and if designated as the goods subject to examination, a security is provided for the difference between the base price

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the case was dealt with as part of the first instance court's judgment. At the time of the present case, only the Congo was subject to the prior tax assessment, and there was no clear definition provision for the Congo, but also as part of the importer's intent (non-indicted 5 and 1). Accordingly, at the Incheon Customs, the case was dealt with as part of the prior tax assessment by recognizing it as the Kaiopi, Cheonggo, and Mago as the Mago, but it was not included in the subject of the prior tax assessment. The issue was due to disagreement between the importer of the Mago and the customs house of the Mago, and the fact that the Defendants violated the prior tax assessment procedure for the import of the Mago, the bean, the bean, the bean, the Mago, the Matan, the Katan, the Katan, the Katan, the Katan, and the fact that the Defendants violated the prior tax assessment procedure for the import of the Mana.

(C) As to the identity of the tax amount

A person liable to pay customs duties shall, when filing an import declaration, file a declaration on the price of the relevant goods (hereinafter referred to as “price declaration”), and when filing a dutiable value declaration, submit data related to the determination of the dutiable value as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and where it is difficult to determine the dutiable value, a dutiable value declaration may be omitted (Article 27 of the Customs Act). In addition, the dutiable value of the imported goods, which is the basis for taxation, is the transaction price adjusted by adding transportation charges, etc. to the price actually paid or payable by the buyer for the goods sold for export

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the Korea Customs Service: (a) conducted a customs declaration below the base price when it operated imported goods with internal guidelines; (b) conducted a collection procedure; (c) on the other hand, the Korea Customs Service determined USD 198 per ton as the base price for bean regardless of the type of bean; (d) 32 per ton; and (e) on the other hand, the Korea Customs Service did not import declaration at least 437-525 per ton of bean; and (e) determined that the customs clearance amount was less than 1,000 per ton; and (e) on the other hand, the customs clearance price was less than 1,000 per ton; and (e) there was no difference between the customs clearance declaration and the customs clearance declaration by the Korea Customs Service and the Korea Customs Service; and (e) Defendant 1, on the other hand, stated that the customs clearance declaration was less than 1,000 if the customs clearance declaration was not made; and (f) Defendant 2,006.

(3) General.

As above, even if the Austria, the Congo was imported into the Pacific, the Pacific, the Pacific, and the Russia at the time of the instant case, the tariff classification and tariff rate, the amount of tax, and the prior tax assessment procedures are all identical. As such, the effect of the import declaration made into the Kaiopi, the Cheonggo, and the Russia shall also extend to the Austria and the Hasia. Thus, it cannot be punished for a violation of the Customs Act that reported and imported goods different from the reported goods (On the other hand, Defendant 2, 4, and 3 shall not be punished for a violation of the Customs Act that reported and imported the goods (in collusion with Defendant 1 by allowing it to inspect the 16 times in collusion with him, not the Hasia, the Masia, the Kasia, and the Cheongsia (the remainder of Non-Indicted 5 inspected only eight times, and is deemed to have committed a crime by the side).

B. As to the violation of the Plant Protection Act

According to the current status of entry and departure, inventory, and invoice 5, Non-Indicted. 24 and Non-Indicted. 4 were found to have taken place on December 24, 2005, and they cannot be readily concluded to have been shipped out prior to the date of phytosanitary measures because the B/L number is not specified. Non-Indicted. 5 stated that it can be deemed to have been shipped out prior to the date of phytosanitary measures. Non-Indicted. 4 stated that the part which was entered prior to the date of entry/explication (5 pages, 47 of investigation records) was not clearly known by the name of the applicant (the date of entry/explication) and that it was hard to recognize that Non-Indicted. 2 stated that “Non-Indicted. 4's statement was not yet made prior to the date of entry/explic measures (the date of entry/explic measures)” (the date of entry/explic measures to which Non-Indicted. 4's statement was not yet made.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendants is just, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as pointed out by the prosecutor, and the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Cho Han-chul (Presiding Judge)