Whether Article 6 (4) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Refund of Customs Duties, etc. Levied on Raw Materials for Export is excluded from the application of Article 6 (4) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which shall be punished by fraudulent means (negative)

Article 270(5) of the Customs Act provides that "any person who has received a refund of customs duties in an unlawful manner shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than three years or by a fine not exceeding five times the amount of customs duties refunded." Article 23(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Refund of Customs Duties, etc. Levied on Raw Materials for Export (hereinafter referred to as the "Act on Special Cases concerning the Refund of Customs Duties, etc.") provides that "any person who has received a refund of customs duties, etc. by a deceitful or unlawful means shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than three years or by a fine not exceeding five times the amount of customs duties." Meanwhile, Article 6(4) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Refund of Customs Duties, etc. Levied on Raw Materials for Export (hereinafter referred to as the "Special Cases concerning the Refund of Customs Duties, etc.") provides that any person who commits an offense provided for in Article 270(5) of the Customs Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Special Cases concerning the Refund of Customs Duties, etc.") shall not be punished by Article 70(2) of the Customs Act.

Article 6(4) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 270(5) of the Customs Act, Article 23(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Refund of Customs

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Yoon Yoon-tae

Seoul High Court Decision 2001No3194 delivered on August 16, 2002

The appeal is dismissed.

1. Points of mistake of facts

According to the evidence duly admitted and adopted by the court below, even though the defendant exported 10,00 kg of high volume manufactured by mixing the import declaration of 5,700 kg and the import declaration of 6,000 g of the Republic of Korea that cannot be subject to the refund of customs duties with Japan, it can be recognized that the defendant applied for the refund of customs duties with 38,101,580 g of the import declaration and received the refund of customs duties by unlawful means, and there is no error of misconception of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence, such as the grounds for appeal.

2. Meritorious of legal principles

Article 270(5) of the Customs Act provides that "any person who has received a refund of customs duties in an unlawful manner shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than three years or by a fine not exceeding five times the amount of customs duties refunded." Article 23(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Refund of Customs Duties, etc. Levied on Raw Materials for Export (hereinafter referred to as the "Act on Special Cases concerning the Refund of Customs Duties, etc.") provides that "any person who has received a refund of customs duties, etc. by a deceitful or unlawful means shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than three years or by a fine not exceeding five times the amount of customs duties." Meanwhile, Article 6(4) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Refund of Customs Duties, etc. Levied on Raw Materials for Export (hereinafter referred to as the "Special Cases concerning the Refund of Customs Duties, etc.") provides that any person who commits an offense provided for in Article 270(5) of the Customs Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Special Cases concerning the Refund of Customs Duties, etc.") shall not be punished by Article 70(2) of the Customs Act.

In the same purport, the decision of the court below that imposed the customs duties on the raw materials for export on the charges of this case in an unlawful manner shall be justified and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Zwon-won (Presiding Justice)