However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The Defendant is a person who operates the “C” in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

Any person who imports goods from a foreign country and files an import declaration thereon shall not file a false declaration on the dutiable value, tariff rate, etc. in order to affect the determination of the amount of duty

Nevertheless, the Defendant, around November 6, 2013, imported 139,80 Karan from Dr. Dr. to Incheon Port, and filed an import declaration in the name of "C". The fact was that the actual price of the above nationalization was US$ 16,324, but the actual price was US$ 15,654, and was falsely reported as US$ 4,047,080, which was the difference (actual price-reported price) by omitting it, even though the actual price of the above nationalization was US$ 16,324, and the Defendant evaded KRW 1,019,690, which was imposed on KRW 4,765,943 (actual price-reported price).

From February 10, 2017 to February 10, 2017, the Defendant filed a false declaration in the same way while importing the country from China over 174 times, as shown in the list of crimes in the attached Table, and subsequently evaded the total amount of KRW 282,10,630.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A written accusation;

1. Current status of revenues, details of revenues, current status of deposits received per dispatch, and details of transfers;

1. The details of each C financial transaction (the statement, etc. of remittance of foreign currency);

1. Application of each C Import Declaration Act and subordinate statutes;

1. Articles 270(1)1 and 241(1) of the Customs Act and the choice of imprisonment for a crime under the relevant Act;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (The following circumstances considered in favor of the reasons for sentencing);

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act does not specify the amount of taxes evaded by the Defendant for the instant crime, but it is recognized and contradictory to the Defendant, and there are circumstances that may be taken into account the circumstances leading to the instant crime, the amount of taxes evaded was partially paid, and the remaining amount of taxes should be faithfully paid.