beta
(영문) 부산지방법원 2014.05.22 2014노442

관세법위반

Text

All the judgment below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with labor for a year and for a fine of KRW 17 million, and Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of KRW 6.8 million.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A asserted misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the guilty portion of the judgment below prior to remand, but this part of the claim was withdrawn in the trial after remand.

The punishment of the court below (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. In full view of the provisions of Articles 241(1), 242, and 19(1)1 of the Customs Act, the taxpayer becomes the object of the crime of false declaration, where the taxpayer commits a false declaration.

Therefore, even though the Defendants conspired to import the instant lecture in the name of “E” despite the fact that the Defendants were the actual owner and the taxpayer, and entered business registration number in the name of “E” meets the elements of a crime of violating the Customs Act due to a false declaration of taxpayers, the lower court determined otherwise and found the Defendants not guilty of the facts charged.

B. The sentence of the court below (one year of imprisonment) against Defendant A on the ground of unfair sentencing against Defendant A is too unfasible and unfair.

2. Prior to the judgment on each of the respective arguments by Defendant A and the prosecutor, the prosecutor applied for amendments to the indictment with the purport of changing the part not guilty in the facts charged in this case as stated in “Article 3-1(a).” Since the court of the first instance prior to the remand changed the object of the judgment by permitting it, the part not guilty in the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more.

However, the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles on this part is still subject to a party member's judgment, and this is examined below

3. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principle

A. On March 15, 2012, Defendant A is a director of the Agricultural Products Import Enterprise “E” located in Busan Jung-gu, Busan around March 15, 2012.