관세법위반
All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.
1. The gist of the prosecutor’s appeal is that the collection under the Customs Act has a punitive nature, and thus, the court below ordered the Defendants to jointly collect the additional collection from each of the Defendants. However, the court below asserted that there was an error of misunderstanding of legal principles, but the court below withdrawn the aforementioned assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles by submitting the written opinion dated January 2, 2019 (additional Collection) after the closing of the argument in this case, and even after ex officio examination, the court below did not seem to have erred
Each sentence of the lower court against the Defendants (Defendant A: fine of KRW 4,00,000 and penalty of KRW 122,280,000, Defendant B: fine of KRW 4,000,000; fine of KRW 122,280,000; confiscation (Evidence 1); and penalty of KRW 122,280,00; and Defendant C: fine of KRW 4,00,000 and penalty of KRW 122,280,00) are too unreasonable.
2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s failure to submit new sentencing data at the trial and the lower court’s failure to do so. In full view of the factors revealed in the argument process of the instant case, the lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.
Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal against the defendants is without merit, and all of the appeals are dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.