1. Article 180(1) of the Customs Act provides that the act of evading customs duties shall be punished, at the same time, that goods owned or possessed by an offender shall be forfeited, and Article 198(1) of the same Act provides that when the whole or part of the goods subject to forfeiture under the above provision cannot be forfeited, an amount equivalent to the domestic wholesale price of the goods subject to forfeiture at the time of offense shall be collected from an offender.

It can be seen that the necessary confiscation and collection of illegal goods in violation of the Customs Law is made for the purpose of preventing crimes by seriously regulating the act of violation and giving warnings to the general public and of depriving the general public of the value of the illegal goods or their values out of the number of criminals.

Thus, if the transfer was made prior to the acquisition and transfer of the goods exempted from customs duties under Article 180(1) of the Customs Act, and the judgment that the goods should be forfeited by the above Article 180 from any criminal involved in the transfer becomes final and conclusive, as long as the goods are already seized by the inspection, the goods in violation will be attributed to the National Treasury at the same time as the actual confiscation is made in relation to other criminal. Thus, there is no room for applying Article 198(1) of the Customs Act.

According to the records, as shown in the judgment of the court of first instance, the defendants conspired in collusion with the defendants to evade customs duties by illegally releasing the above-mentioned general goods (except No. 1 through No. 23, No. 8, 168 out of the evidence No. 1 through No. 23, 8) from the supply of Bupyeong-gu Camp Maf x-ray. On the other hand, the defendant at the court of first instance is found to have acquired the above-mentioned general goods at the court of first instance and it is evident that the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year and

Thus, although the defendants cannot be collected by applying Article 198 (1) of the above Customs Act to the defendants in this case, the value of the defendants cannot be collected by the resale disposition and the equivalent amount should be collected. In support of the judgment of the first instance, which is the same purport as the defendant 2 and the same 3, and the decision of the court below which ordered the collection to the defendant 1 simultaneously, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to confiscation and collection under the Customs Act. In this regard, the decision of the court below is omitted and the decision of the court below cannot escape from the reversal because it has reasons for the argument.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench to reverse and remand the judgment.

Justices Jeong Tae-won (Presiding Justice)

Justices Park Young-chul-chul-chul, who are unable to sign and seal due to his retirement.