Whether a habitual crime of evading customs duties can be punished for each concurrent crime without changing the indictment.

Without the procedure of modifying the indictment, the fact of evading customs duties, which was indicted for habitual crime of evading customs duties under Article 6 (7) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, is recognized as the act of evading customs duties under Article 180 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and is subject to concurrent crimes, the identity of the charges is not changed,

Article 298 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Attorney Kim Jong-young (Korean National University)

Seoul High Court Decision 79No1259 delivered on December 6, 1979

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The so-called habitual crime requires repeated commission of the same kind of crime to be considered as the origin of the habitive wall, and even if the defendant evaded customs duties several times according to the records, this is acceptable in the original decision and under the circumstances such as the original judgment, and thus, it cannot be said that there is a misapprehension of the legal principle as to habituality.

2. The judgment of the court below, without the procedure of changing the indictment, recognized the facts of evading customs duties as an act of evading customs duties under Article 180(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which was prosecuted for habitually a crime of evading customs duties under Article 6(7) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and applied for concurrent crimes, even though the facts of evading customs duties are recognized as an act of evading customs duties under Article 180(1) of the Act

Therefore, the appeal of this case is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-chul (Presiding Justice)