1. The case holding that an act of forfeiture of articles not owned or possessed by an offender has been committed;

2. Whether a fine may be mitigated and mitigated in the aggravated punishment of any violation of the Customs Duties Act;

1. The seized articles are articles carried out from the U.S. X-house and carried and transported to the U.S. military vehicles upon the request of the Korean criminal, and are transferred to the Korean investigation agency via the U.S. military criminal investigation unit without delivering the articles to the criminal, and thus, they cannot be subject to confiscation because they do not belong to the ownership or possession of the above criminal.

2. In a case where a crime of violation of Article 180 of the Customs Act is subject to the aggravated punishment pursuant to Article 6(2) and (3) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and a fine is to be imposed concurrently pursuant to Article 194 of the Customs Act, it shall not be subject to discretionary mitigation by applying Article 53 of the Criminal Act to a fine.

Article 48 of the Criminal Act, Article 6 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 180, Article 194 of the Customs Act, Article 53 of the Criminal Act

65o4 delivered on January 31, 196 (Supreme Court Decision 3785 delivered on July 31, 196, 77Do2114 delivered on September 13, 197 (Supreme Court Decision 1168 delivered on September 13, 197, Article 6(5)14 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 569 delivered on July 10275, 196)

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants and Prosecutor (Defendant 1 only)

Seoul Criminal Court of the first instance (72 High Court Decision 650)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for three years and by fine for twenty thousand won, and by imprisonment for two years and six months and fine for nine thousand won, respectively.

If each of the above fines is not paid, the defendants shall be confined in each workhouse for the period calculated by converting 30,000 won into one day.

As to Defendant 1, 85 days of detention prior to the pronouncement of the original judgment shall be included in the above imprisonment.

However, the execution of each of the above imprisonment shall be suspended for five years from the date of the final judgment.

The amount of KRW 12,610,552 from Defendant 1, and KRW 9,720,000 from Defendant 2 shall be collected respectively.

The first ground for appeal by the attorney-at-law of the defendants is that the defendants committed the principal offense, and the court below found the defendants guilty, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the second ground for appeal by the attorney-at-law of the defendant 1 was that the court below did not reduce the amount of the evaded tax in calculating the amount of the fine which the court below did not reduce the amount of the first criminal facts at the time of the original judgment, and the court below did not reduce the amount of the evaded tax and added it to five times the amount of the fine. The third ground for appeal by the attorney-at-law of the defendant 1 and the second ground for appeal by the attorney-at-law of the defendant 2 are unfair, because the amount of the punishment imposed by the court below is too unreasonable. The second ground for appeal by the prosecutor against the defendant 1 is that the judgment of the court below is too unjustifiable and unreasonable.

If we examine ex officio the judgment of the court below on the defendant 1, it is clear that 18 pieces of 18 (Evidence 1) seized on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes were to be forfeited from defendant 1 pursuant to Article 180 (1) of the Customs Act on the premise that they were the goods owned or possessed by the defendant, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the above Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes by removing 4 U.S. military personnel at the request of the defendant 1 and carrying them out to the U.S. military vehicles and carrying them out to the 00 U.S. military vehicles, and by 18 U.S. military personnel's statements in the interrogation protocol against the defendant 1, 2, and 3 were combined, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to punishment as to the above 9 U.S. military vehicles, since it did not affect the conclusion of the judgment of the court below on the 190 U.S. military vehicles, and it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to punishment as to the above 2nd evidence.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed ex officio in accordance with Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the members are again decided.

(Criminal Facts)

In addition to the fact that each of the defendants' criminal facts acknowledged as a member of a party is deemed to be "10,260,000 won" among the criminal facts in the original trial as to the defendant 2 and "9,720,000 won" among the criminal facts in the above 12 criminal facts from the above 12 criminal facts, it is identical to the time of each judgment of the court below, and therefore, it shall be accepted as it is in accordance with Article

(Abstract of Evidence)

Defendant 2’s criminal facts and the criminal facts of Defendant 1’s holding

1. Each part of the statements made by the Defendants and Nonindicted 5 in the trial records of the court below which are consistent with the above facts

1. Each protocol of interrogation of the prosecutor's defendants and non-indicted 5 containing each of the above facts

1. In full view of the appraisal report prepared by Nonindicted Party 6, it can be recognized by taking into account the following factors: the market price of the goods mentioned above and the result of the appraisal consistent with the amount of customs duties;

Defendant 1’s remainder of the Judgment:

1. A statement made by Nonindicted Party 1 to the effect that it is consistent with the above facts set forth in this Court

1. Each statement that conforms to the facts set forth in the judgment of the court below, Nonindicted 5, and Nonindicted 3’s witness in the protocol of the court below

1. Each protocol of interrogation of the prosecutor's suspect as to the defendant 1 and non-indicted 5, each protocol of interrogation of the prosecutor's suspect as to non-indicted 7 and non-indicted 8 in the process of performing duties as prosecutor and judicial police officer, and each statement that

1. Each statement made by a prosecutor and a senior judicial police officer with respect to Nonindicted 9 and each statement made in conformity with the facts contained in the above judgment among the statements made by Nonindicted 4 in the preparation of the duty handling of the senior judicial police officer;

1. The description of each appraisal result appropriate for the market price and the amount of customs duties of each of the goods described in the above judgment among the written expert opinions prepared by Nonindicted Party 10 by the agent in the Seoul Customs Office;

1. In full view of the records, etc. that each of the items of the ruling in the seizure records of the preparation of duty handling of judicial police officers has been seized, each of the above facts can be recognized. Therefore, all of the above facts are proven.

Article 6 (2) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 180 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 2 (1) of the Act, Article 30 of the same Act, Article 30 of the same Act, Article 60 of the same Act, Article 2 (b) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, since the above provision of the Act provides 0 to 0 to 6 times a fine of 0 to 3 times a fine of 0 to 5 times a fine of 0 to 6 times a fine of 0 to 5 times a fine of 0 to 6 times a fine of 10 to 6 times a fine of 0 to 6 times a fine of 10 to 6 times a fine of 10 to 30 times a fine of 1 to 6 times a fine of 1 to 30 to 6 times a fine of 1 to 6 times a fine of 1 to 30 to 5 times a fine of the same Act.

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

The final management of the judge's regular succession (Presiding Judge)