Whether a crime of evading customs duties is established on goods worn or worn, when entering the Republic of Korea from a foreign country

Except as otherwise provided in the Customs Act, customs duties shall be imposed on imported goods taken in Korea by foreign countries, and such imported goods are interpreted to be regardless of fry, regardless of whether they are fryed. Therefore, the object of taxation should also be goods that Defendant worn or worn at the time of entry into Korea.

Articles 180, 2, and 3 of the Customs Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul District Court Decision 73 High Court Decision 73 High Gohap113

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

A set-up code 1 (No. 2) (No. 3) shall be confiscated respectively from the Defendant, one (No. 3) which is 2.02 Caart, one (No. 1) which is seized, one (No. 1) which is put in effect in the same area (No. 1).

The gist of the prosecutor's grounds for appeal is as follows: First, according to Articles 2 (1) and 3 of the Customs Act, goods which arrive in Korea from a foreign country are taxed regardless of whether they are new goods or not; therefore, the defendant's duty is not subject to taxation under the Customs Act; first, it is clear that the defendant is subject to taxation under the Customs Act even if he receives a marriage gift from non-party 1; second, the defendant is a person visiting Japan over several occasions; second, the defendant's duty must be reported when he enters Korea, considering that he is the owner of an academic career at which he was higher education; the defendant's duty is not subject to taxation under the Customs Act; the defendant's motive and circumstances leading him to return to Korea; and in light of the circumstances at the time, the defendant's duty is not subject to taxation under the above Act; and the defendant's duty is not guilty; thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the above goods.

Considering that imported goods which arrive in Korea from a foreign country are subject to customs duties in accordance with the Customs Act except as otherwise expressly provided for in the Customs Act (Articles 2(1)1 and 3 of the Customs Act). Such imported goods include all new goods regardless of their personal effects. Considering that various evidences adopted by the court below after the lawful examination of evidence are written in the defendant's trial court, the testimony of the witness at the trial court, the testimony of the witness at the trial court, the statement of the non-indicted 2 of the prosecutor's preparation of the prosecutor, and the written statement of the non-indicted 2 of the non-indicted 2, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant had the intention to evade customs duties, and there is no evidence after this, the defendant cannot be exempted from the liability for the crime of evading customs duties. However, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the defendant's goods which the court below failed or worn at the time of entering Korea and the defendant did not have the intention to evade customs duties, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, which affected the judgment of the court below.

Therefore, according to Articles 364(6) and 361-5(14) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed and the party members shall be ruled again.

(Criminal Facts)

The Defendant, while residing in Japan on January 15, 1973, entered the country via the Kimpo Airport at around 23:00 on January 15, 1973, he evaded customs duties amounting to 319,000 won by putting one minc 2.02 cart, which was received from the husband, from the non-indicted 1, the husband, and concealing one minct in the co-fusat and passing through the Kimpo Customs by unlawful means.

(Abstract of Evidence)

1. Statement that conforms to the facts set forth in the judgment of the court below and the trial of the party;

1. Statement that conforms to the facts set forth in the judgment of Nonindicted Party 2 at the trial court of the political party

1. Each statement that conforms to the facts in the judgment among the interrogation protocol of the defendant and the statement of non-indicted 2 on the non-indicted 2

1. Each statement made by the judicial police officer with respect to Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 3, which conforms to the facts indicated in the judgment, in the preparation of a duty handling protocol

1. Statement consistent with the facts stated in the judgment, such as a written statement of Nonindicted 2 written

1. Existing facts of evidence as referred to in subparagraphs 1 through 4 above and the entries therein;

1. The description corresponding to the evaded tax amount as stated in the judgment among the written appraisal of preparation of administrative secretary and assistant balance sheet;

(Application of Acts and subordinate statutes)

As the judgment of the defendant falls under Article 180 (1) of the Customs Act, the sentence of the above punishment against the defendant shall be suspended in accordance with Article 59 (1) of the Criminal Act, since the sentence of the above punishment against the defendant shall be suspended in accordance with Article 59 (1) of the Criminal Act because the sentence of the above punishment falls under Article 180 (1) of the Customs Act, one (No. 2), one (No. 1), one (No. 2), and one (No. 3) of the two (No. 1) of the two (No. 1) of the two (No. 1 of the two (No. 1) of the two (No. 1 of the two (No. 1) of the two (No. 1 of the two (No. 1) of the two (No. 1 of the two) of the two (No. 1 of the two (No. 180) of the two (No. 3) of the above sentence shall be imposed on the defendant's property provided for the crime.

Judge Lee Ho-ho (Presiding Judge)