[2] The case holding that, where a finished product manufactured in China was imported in addition to the main manufacturing process in Korea and a finished product whose tariff classification is different, even if the country of origin indication attached to the semi-finished product remains in the finished product from the time of importation, it does not constitute "mark of origin" under Article 23 (3) 2 of the former Foreign Trade Act

[2] The case holding that, where the semi-finished manufactured in China imported the semi-finished manufactured in China and manufactured the finished product whose tariff classification is different in Korea by adding the manufacturing process, such as tobacco, painting, and attaching major parts, the act of marking the country of origin (MADIN CHINA) attached in the semi-finished product from the time of importation does not constitute a "mark of the country of origin" under Article 23 (3) 2 of the former Foreign Trade Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8356 of Apr. 11, 2007), since it does not constitute a "mark of the country of origin" under Article 23 (3) 2 of the former Foreign Trade Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8356 of Apr. 11, 2007) so that it cannot be identified from the outside

Article 5 subparag. 7 and Article 23(3)2 of the Foreign Trade Act (hereinafter “the Act”) provide that “any trader or distributor of goods, etc. shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than three years or by a fine not exceeding 30 million won.” In full view of the provisions of Article 23(1) through (3) of the Act, Article 53(2) and (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act (hereinafter “Decree”), Articles 6-25 and 6-2-9(1)3 of the Regulations on External Trade Management (hereinafter “former Management Regulations”), and Article 6-25 and 6-2-9(3)2 of the same Act (hereinafter “former Management Regulations”), where parts or raw materials produced in a foreign country have been put in the manufacturing process that causes substantial transformation after their import in the Republic of Korea and have been finished, and thus, it does not constitute a violation of Article 23(3)2 of the Act and Article 53(3)2 of the former Management Regulations, even if the parts or raw materials have been labeledd into the origin.”

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the defendant 1, the representative director of the defendant company, was entrusted with the installation of a finished product of this case from 18 March 2003 to 23 March 2004, which is the condition of attaching a wood and head to the body part of the Chinese government, and the half-finished product of this case, which is the condition of attaching a label and head to the body part of its body part, shall be marked as "MAEINA" and shall be imported in addition to 70% manufacturing process of this case, such as attaching a smoke, painting, string, string, and chrings in the Republic of Korea and then supplied it to the defendant company, the distributor of this case, and then, the defendant 2, the representative director of the defendant company, the defendant 1, the defendant 2, who was the defendant company, was assigned with the installation of a finished product of this case from 00 U.S. Mar. 18, 200 to 200.

In light of the above legal principles, regulations, and facts, the semi-finished products of this case were put into the manufacturing process that causes a substantial change in tariff classification after importation, and the finished product of this case shall be deemed to have been put into the manufacturing process that causes a substantial change in tariff classification after importation, and even if there remain the indication of "MADININA" made in the above semi-finished product, it shall not be deemed to fall under the indication of origin" as stipulated in Article 23 (3) 2 of the Act, and even if it is damaged, it shall not be deemed to have been a violation of Article 5 (7) and Article 23 (3) 2 of the Act.

Although some expressions in the judgment of the court below seem to be somewhat inappropriate, it is in conclusion legitimate to render a not-guilty verdict on the facts charged in this case, and there is no error of law affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

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

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)