The case holding that the act of failing to report the tear of engine repair from the captain abroad constitutes "the act of failing to report" under Article 180 of the Customs Act when reporting the arrival of the ship; or "the act of failing to report" under Article 180 of the Customs Act.

Article 180 of the Customs Act provides that "any other unlawful means" means any act that enables a captain to evade taxes by means of social norms, such as fraud and illegal acts, and includes both active and passive acts (e.g., omission). If the repair part of the ship of this case, which the owner of the ship entered into port by the Defendant, was not revealed as an engine inside the ship, etc., the imposition and collection of customs duties thereon would be considerably difficult if there is no repair report. Therefore, in filing a port entry report, if the repair part of the ship of this case was not revealed as an engine inside the ship, etc., it shall be deemed that the Defendant committed an unlawful act under social norms if the Defendant reported the repair part along with the ship's main engine part from the captain in Singapore and did not report it.

Article 180 of the Customs Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other

Each Prosecutor

Attorney Park Jong-gu

Busan High Court Decision 89No642 delivered on January 10, 1990

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below stated that "the crime of evading customs duties" refers to a deceptive scheme or other active act that makes it impossible or considerably difficult to impose and collect customs duties, and the failure to report under the tax law does not constitute a deceptive or other unlawful act. The defendant 1 reported repair together with the main engine part, etc. of the above ship in Singapore when he filed a port entry report on the main engine part of the above ship at the original board board 1, but it can be recognized that the import declaration on repair of the above ship was made only without omission and entry into port. Thus, it cannot be viewed as a fraudulent or other unlawful act, and the above main office's captain prepared arbitrarily the repair facility in a quantity that makes it difficult to report the repair facility, and thus, it can not be seen as a passive act (see Supreme Court Decision 17Da1878, Dec. 17, 2008).

However, according to the records, since the repair part of the ship of this case can be known as an engine inside the ship, etc. which is not revealed externally, the imposition and collection of customs duties on it shall be considerably difficult without Defendant 1’s report of repair. If Defendant 1 did not report the repair from the captain on the side along with the repair contents, such act constitutes an illegal act under social norms, even if Defendant 1 did not report the repair.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below by interpreting the "private or other unlawful means" in the crime of evading customs duties as stated in its holding shall be deemed to have committed an error of misunderstanding the legal principles of the Customs Act, but it is reasonable to point this out.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below against the Defendants is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon So-young (Presiding Justice)