A. Whether a returned director's goods imported without a refund are exempt from customs duties (negative)

(b) In cases where part of the imported goods most disguised as a director of the person returning to the Republic of Korea has been deducted without undergoing customs procedures, the nature of the crime of attempted evasion of customs duties; and

(a) A customs duty rate is no different even in cases where non-imported goods are carried in by moving-in goods, personal effects, consignments, etc. of a person who moves-in from a foreign country which is free of exchange pursuant to the Trading Business Act, even if such goods are not permitted, or there is no ground to deem that customs duties are reduced or exempted, and import of certain limits of goods is permitted. However, used goods used by residential electronics and their families in their former residence are exempt from customs duties.

B. In a case where it is found that the Defendant pretended that he was a director of a person who moves out of Korea electronic equipment, etc., a part of the Defendant filed an import declaration in accordance with the customs clearance procedure, and that the remainder of the goods were concealed separately, and attempted to evade customs duties by taking away from the customs without the customs clearance procedure, the crime of attempted evasion of customs duties under Article 180(1) of the Customs Act is established only with respect to the part that did not go through the customs clearance procedure.

A. Article 14 subparagraph 1 of the Trading Business Act, Article 46 subparagraph 23 of the Enforcement Decree of the Trading Business Act, Article 180 of the Customs Act

Defendant 1 and two others

Defendants

Attorney Lee De-soo, Counsel for the defendant

Daegu High Court Decision 83No181 delivered on April 13, 1983

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 as well as the defense counsel of Defendant 1 and 2 as well as the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 as the defense counsel of Defendant 3 are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, the court below, based on the premise that customs duties are reduced or exempted for those who move overseas, and that import is permitted for non-indicted 1's forced delivery of electronic equipment, etc. under the premise that they are forced to be repatriated in Japan, and if they are consigned to this article under the name of co-defendant 3 and their children who were forced to be repatriated from Japan, the court below's co-defendant 1's delivery of electronic equipment to the above non-indicted 1's address and the above non-indicted 1's delivery of the goods to the above non-indicted 5's domestic address and the above non-indicted 1's delivery of the goods to the non-indicted 8's customs clearance to the above non-indicted 1's address and the above non-indicted 1's delivery of the goods to the above non-indicted 9's remaining goods to the non-indicted 2's delivery of the goods to the non-indicted 1's customs clearance of the goods.

2. Ultimately, the court below held that customs duties are also imposed on imported goods which are not permitted for a long period of time, such as new goods or used goods as described above. However, according to the Customs Act, the Trade Act, the Trade Business Act, and the Korea Customs Service’s notice on the Customs Duties for Goods, personal effects, consignments, etc., imported without exchange pursuant to the Trade Business Act, such as Korea Customs Service’s Act, it does not have any basis to allow import of goods which are not permitted (if import is not permitted, customs duties and storage fees are disposed by public sale and public sale and deduction, and the balance is permitted to be delivered to the owner) or customs duties are reduced or exempted, and the import of goods within a certain period of time is permitted regardless of whether they are new goods or used goods related to the importer’s occupation, family composition, lifestyle due to differences of nationality, reasons for moving residence, and residence period, etc. (However, if customs duties are exempted for a long period of time, customs duties are imposed on the imported goods, the court below held that the import of such goods exceeds the above-mentioned customs-related laws and regulations are not permitted.

The crime of Article 180 of the Customs Act is established when all or part of the customs duties are evaded by fraud or other improper means (Paragraph 1), or when the customs duties are exempted or reduced or exempted, or when an import declaration is filed in accordance with legitimate procedures, it cannot be evaded or reduced as provided in Article 180(1) and (2) of the Customs Act. Thus, as determined by the court below, if part of the goods of this case were concealed separately without the customs procedure of the customs office and were discovered to have attempted to evade customs duties without the customs office procedure of the above Article 180(1) of the Customs Act, it shall be established that only one attempted to evade customs duties and attempted to evade customs duties, and the name and quantity of the goods of this case are not reduced or exempted, and it shall be hard to find that the above Article 180(2) of the Customs Act is an attempted to evade or evade customs duties, and it shall be determined that there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the name and quantity of the goods of this case and the price of the goods to be reduced or exempted.

3. Therefore, the appeal is groundless, and the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)