[1] The elements for indicating the origin of domestically produced goods using the imported raw materials to constitute a violation of Article 55 subparag. 7 and Article 23(3) subparag. 1 of the former Foreign Trade Act

[2] The case holding that an act of a bicycle manufacturer or a bicycle manufacturer or a bicycle manufacturer's act of assembling and manufacturing bicycles by adding domestic parts to bicycle parts, such as a scke cream, etc. imported from China, and then selling bicycles with a mark of origin on the Republic of Korea does not constitute a violation of Article 5 subparagraph 7 of the former Foreign Trade Act and Article 23 (3) 1 of the former Foreign Trade Act

[1] Article 23 (3) 1 of the former Foreign Trade Act (amended by Act No. 6977 of September 29, 2003), Article 24-2 of the Foreign Trade Act / [2] Article 23 (3) 1 of the former Foreign Trade Act (amended by Act No. 6977 of September 29, 2003), Article 24-2 of the Foreign Trade Act

Defendant

Defendant

Changwon District Court Decision 2005No89 decided August 11, 2005

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Changwon District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 5 subparag. 7 and Article 23(3)1 of the Foreign Trade Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) provide that “any trader or dealer of goods, etc. shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than three years or by a fine not exceeding 30 million won.” In full view of Article 24(2) of the Act, Article 55(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Decree”), Article 6-1(2) and (7) of the Regulations on External Trade Management (hereinafter referred to as the “former Management Regulations”), Article 6-1(2) and (7) of the former Act, even if the Act provides for the tariff classification of the goods to be processed and processed in the Republic of Korea after being amended by Act No. 697 of Sep. 29, 2003, Article 24-2 (Standards for Domestic Goods, etc. Using Imported Materials) that have been produced for the purpose of domestic processing and sale of goods, Article 6-1(3) of the Act, even if any change in tariff classification rules.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, the Defendant imported domestic bicycle parts, such as presses, air croke, chain, handbs, rests, and pedals, from September 13, 2001 to May 2002, in the unit of part-time, and assembled and produces bicycles at his own workplace by adding domestic bicycle parts, such as picture (RIM), strings, strings, strings, reflects, reflects, horns, horns, voltages, and straws, and then distributing and selling the above bicycle total sum 1,806 by attaching a Stickbbb "Korea (M: 1,806)" and the aforementioned parts of the bicycle produced (U.S. 8714.91, 8714.94, 94, 1014, 401, 201, 406, 106, 206, etc. of HS).

In light of the above legal principles and facts, a bicycle distributed and sold by the defendant, indicating that it is Korean origin, is separate from its parts imported from China and from HS 6-based classification classification. The defendant's act of assembling and producing the bicycle of this case in addition to domestic bicycle parts in Korea does not meet the "a simple processing activity" criteria under Article 6-3-1 (7) of the former Management Regulations. Thus, the facts charged of this case does not constitute a violation of Article 55 subparagraph 7 and Article 23 (3) 1 of the Act.

Nevertheless, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which found the defendant guilty of the charges of this case on the ground that the bicycle of this case was imported in the condition of non-prefabricated parts and eventually constitutes the same item, or that the defendant's act of assembling and manufacturing the bicycle of this case was merely a simple processing activity. This judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the establishment of a crime of violation of Article 5 subparagraph 7 and Article 23 (3) 1 of the Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The defendant's appeal pointing this out is with merit.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Justice)