Where the intention of evading customs duties is recognized;

Even though there is an objective behavior that can be deemed to have taken the form of an import declaration by placing imported goods on the customs inspection team in appearance, if the declaration behavior is used as a means of improper customs clearance and merely takes a formal procedure as one of the methods of evading customs duties, the scope of a tariff evasion cannot be denied merely on the sole basis of the fact that such a declaration was made.

Article 180 of the Customs Act

Defendant

Prosecutor and Defendant

Seoul District Court (68Da4090)

All appeals by the prosecutor and the defendant are dismissed.

Summary of the Prosecutor’s Grounds for Appeal:

The sentence imposed by the court below is so uneased that it is unfair;

Summary of the grounds for appeal by defense counsel

(1) Since the Defendant made an import declaration because he set the green use of the instant case to the inspection team of the Kimpo Customs office, the Defendant, unless there is any evidence that he/she had avoided the inspection of the customs office, found the Defendant guilty of the lower judgment erroneous interpretation of the Customs Act and fact-finding without using evidence, and thus, did not err by misapprehending the Customs Act, and without using evidence

(2) Under the current trade system, green use is a so-called automatic approval item, and only an import letter of credit can be imported if only an import letter of credit is issued. Thus, although the defendant's act does not constitute a legal crime, the court below erred in the interpretation of the law.

(3) The protocol of interrogation of the prosecutor’s suspect against the defendant is a protocol in which the defendant stated in the state of voluntariness, and thus, the court below’s protocol which admitted it as evidence is unlawful as evidence.

First of all, the grounds for appeal by defense counsel are examined.

If the evidence cited by the judgment of the court below is compared with the contents of the trial records of the court below, it is clear that these evidence is admissible, and if these evidence is compared with the records, the criminal facts acknowledged by the court below can be sufficiently recognized and even if there was an objective behavior that can be seen as taking the form of the import declaration, if the declaration behavior is used as a means of unfair customs clearance and it merely takes a formal procedure as one of the methods to evade customs duties, the criminal intent of the evasion of customs duties cannot be denied only by the fact that the declaration was filed. As long as the goods are not the objects of the imposition of customs duties even if they are not the objects of the goods prohibited from import, it is obvious in law that they can be the objects of the crime of evasion of customs duties, and therefore, the court below's arguments on the grounds of objection as seen above are without merit.

The following grounds for appeal by the prosecutor are examined

As a result of collecting all the circumstances that are the conditions for sentencing as shown in the records of this case, the sentencing of the court below to the defendant is not deemed to be minor, but the circumstances in which the defendant had to be treated more heavily, are not discovered, and therefore, the arguments are groundless.

Therefore, the appeal by the prosecutor and the defendant should be dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

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

Judges Man-hee (Presiding Judge)