meaning where an employee of a corporation under Article 196 of the Customs Act commits an act in connection with the business of the corporation.

In order to see that an employee of a corporation as stipulated in Article 196 of the Customs Act committed an act in connection with the business of the corporation, a subjective employee must first act with the intent that he performs the business of the corporation, and there should be an act that can be objectively recognized as the act for the business of the corporation.

Article 196 of the Customs Act

Supreme Court Decision 77Do2055 delivered on September 13, 1977 (Dakhd 11687; Supreme Court Decision 25B-12; Decision 126(1)1933 of Customs Act; Court Gazette 571No10317 Decided September 13, 197)

Defendant 1 and four others

Defendants

Seoul Criminal Court of the first instance (76 High Court Decision 1141)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant 1’s fine of 100,000 won;

Defendant 2 shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of two years and six months and by a fine of twenty thousand won,00,000 won, respectively, by imprisonment for a term of two years and six months and a fine of thirty thousand won.

If the above fine is not paid, the above defendants 1 shall be confined as one day for the defendant 2, 3, and 4, and as for the defendant 2, 3, and 4, the above defendants shall be confined as one day for the period converted as 50,000 won for each day.

As regards Defendant 1, the period of detention prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of the court below, 30 days shall be included in each of the above imprisonment years, and as regards Defendant 2, 3, and 4, 50 days shall be included in each of the above imprisonment years. The execution of each of the above imprisonment years shall be suspended for 4 years for Defendant 2, and as regards Defendant 3, for 5 years for each of

The articles seized in the attached list (Nos. 1 through 15) shall be confiscated from Defendant 1.

The amount of KRW 14,197,34 from Defendant 2, and KRW 39,467,810 from Defendant 3 and 4 shall be collected respectively.

To order the above Defendants to make provisional payment equivalent to the above fines.

To order the defendant 2 and 3 to be confined in a workhouse until the full payment of each above amount is made.

Defendant 5, Defendant 5, not guilty

The first ground for appeal by Defendant 2 and the attorney-at-law No. 3 and 4 did not contain any error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the second ground for appeal by Defendant 3 and 4 did not contain any error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment, and even if the Defendants leaked and disposed of military supplies as stated in the facts charged, this does not constitute a crime of evading customs duties against a customs offender even though they do not know that it constitutes a crime of larceny, the court below imposed punishment by applying the Customs Act. The third ground for appeal by the attorney-at-law is that there was a violation of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the third ground for appeal by the above attorney-at-law is that there was no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the defendant's act of removing military supplies, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and that the court below's judgment below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the defendant's act of removing military supplies as it did not affect the conclusion of the judgment, and thus, the court below's judgment below is justified.

Therefore, in light of the records of this case, we first examine the grounds for appeal by Defendant 2's defense counsel and the grounds for appeal by Defendant 3 and Defendant 4, and the grounds for appeal by Defendant 1 and the grounds for appeal by Defendant 5 and his defense counsel. In light of the records of this case, we can fully recognize Defendant 2, 3, and 4 of this case, and there are no errors of law as pointed out in the court below's fact-finding (including market price) or in the process of legal application. Thus, we cannot accept the grounds for appeal as to this point.

Then, the third ground for appeal by Defendant 5 Co., Ltd. and his defense counsel provided that when an employee of a corporation commits a violation of the Customs Act in connection with the business of the corporation pursuant to Article 196 of the Customs Act, a corporation shall be punished in addition to punishing the offender. Thus, in order to punish the violation of the Customs Act, an employee of a corporation shall first perform an act with the intent of the employee to perform the business of the corporation, and then conduct an act objectively and objectively for the business of the corporation. In this case, the court below shall examine in detail the evidence presented as evidence of guilt, and it shall not be found that Defendant 2, an employee of the defendant, committed the act of this case for the business of the corporation. Thus, the court below found the defendant guilty despite the fact that the court below erred in the misapprehension of facts without any evidence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the appeal by Defendant 5 Co., Ltd. is without merit.

Finally, as to the propriety of sentencing against Defendant 1, 2, 3, and 4 (as to Defendant 2, ex officio), considering various circumstances such as the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime of this case, and circumstances after the crime, the sentence against the Defendants is too unreasonable, and therefore, the appeal by the above Defendants is well-grounded.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) and (2) (defendant 2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the judgment is to be rendered again after pleading.

Criminal facts and summary of evidence

The criminal facts of Defendants 1, 2, 3, and 4 as recognized by the court of this Court and the summary of the evidence are as shown in each of the relevant cases of the judgment below, except in the case where the defendants 1, 2, 3, and 4 make statements in the trial court of the parties to the case, and the witness 2, and 1 puts the statements in the trial court of the parties to the case as a summary of the evidence. Thus,

Application of Statutes

Article 17(1) of the Criminal Act provides that the defendant shall be sentenced to a fine of KRW 1 and KRW 1 and KRW 20 shall be sentenced to a fine of KRW 1 and KRW 1 and KRW 20 shall be sentenced to a fine of KRW 3 and KRW 20 shall be sentenced to a fine of KRW 3 and KRW 40 shall be sentenced to a fine of KRW 1 and KRW 30 shall be sentenced to a fine of KRW 1 and KRW 20 shall be sentenced to a fine of KRW 1 and KRW 30 shall be sentenced to a fine of KRW 1 and KRW 20 shall be sentenced to a fine of KRW 1 and KRW 30 shall be sentenced to a fine of KRW 1 and KRW 20 shall be sentenced to a fine of KRW 1 and KRW 30 shall be sentenced to a fine of KRW 4 and KRW 50 shall be sentenced to a fine of KRW 1 and KRW 30 shall be sentenced to a fine of KRW 4 and KRW 50 shall be sentenced to a fine of KRW 3 and KRW 50 shall be sentenced to a fine of KRW 4.

Denot guilty

The summary of the facts charged against Defendant 5 corporation is as follows: Co-defendant 2, an employee of the Defendant, in collusion with Nonindicted 3, etc. on March 4, 1976 in connection with his business, found the facts charged against Defendant 5 to be 63 boxes, 135 boxes, 197, 1334, and 40 boxes totaled at the market price of 14,197, 787, 787, and 192, 86, and 10 tons of 7,10 tons of 7,210, from the site of the highway construction of the Busan branch of the Defendant corporation, at the location of the Busan High Military Distribution Base Co-defendant 348, Pyeongtaek-gun, Busan, which were transported from the supply base of the U.S. food in Busan High-gun, and there is no evidence to find out the facts charged against Defendant 2 as evidence of the first instance court's rejection of the above 3,587, 787, and 196.

Therefore, since the facts charged in this case fall under the case where there is no proof of crime, the sentence of innocence is made by the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judge Advice (Presiding Judge)