[관세법위반,방위세법위반][공1991.11.1.(907),2570]
Relation between confiscation and collection under Articles 198(2) and (3), and 180(1) of the Customs Act and confiscation and collection under Article 48 of the Criminal Act
Confiscation and collection under Article 198(2) and (3) of the Customs Act and Article 180(1) of the Customs Act are distinguished from confiscation and collection under Article 48 of the Criminal Act for the destruction of public goods or the purpose of disciplinary action according to the legislative purpose and purport of the Customs Act.
Articles 198(2), 198(3), and 180(1) of the Customs Act, Article 48 of the Criminal Act
[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellee)
Defendant
Defendant
Attorney Lee Jae-ho
Busan High Court Decision 90No816 delivered on April 17, 1991
The appeal is dismissed.
Confiscation and additional collection under Articles 198(2) and (3) and 180(1) of the Customs Act are distinguished from the collection of confiscation under Article 48 of the Criminal Act for the purpose of destroying public goods for crime or its punitive purpose according to the legislative purpose and purport of the Customs Act (see Supreme Court Decision 80Do584 delivered on December 9, 1980, Supreme Court Decision 83Do191 delivered on September 27, 1983).
Therefore, the court below's finding the defendant guilty of charged facts of violation of Article 180 (1) of the Customs Act, and affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which determined the collection of 108,682,140 won out of the total domestic wholesale price of each printing machine's domestic wholesale price at the time of each printing machine's crime under Article 198 (3) of the Customs Act on the ground that the printing machine of this case, which is an illegal article that evaded customs duties, is subject to confiscation under Article 198 (2) of the Customs Act, is not subject to confiscation, and on the ground that it cannot be confiscated, it is just to maintain the judgment of the court of first instance which determined the collection of 108
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)