Cases where the application of other provisions of this Act, the identity of the charges of which is not disturbed, may be applied without being exempted from the applicable provisions of the indictment, unless it is detrimental to the identity of the charges.

As long as the identity of the facts charged is not disturbed, the provisions of other Acts indicated in the indictment can be applied with minor punishment, so if the facts charged are not the crime of export or import-prohibited goods under Article 197 of the former Customs Act (Act No. 67 of Nov. 23, 499), or the crime of transit of import or export-prohibited goods under Articles 200 and 197 of the same Act, but the crime of evasion of customs duties under Article 198 of the same Act or the crime of transit of sale or purchase of goods under Articles 200 and 198 of the same Act, it should be applied with respect to evasion of war, etc.

Article 31 of the Customs Act, Article 197 of the Customs Act, Article 198 of the Customs Act, Article 200 of the Customs Act

Prosecutor Kim Jong-chul

Defendant 1

Seoul High Court, Seoul High Court, Seoul High Court, etc.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below ex officio, Defendant 1 imported bail, which is prohibited from import on May 21, 4293, intended to export bail, which is prohibited from export on May 30 of the same year, and Defendant 2 mediated the sale and purchase of bail, which is prohibited from import on June 9, 4293, and Defendant 3 mediated the sale and purchase of such bail on June 6 of the same year. However, according to the purport of the original judgment, the trial court can find that other provisions of law can be applied to the prosecutor's indictment which do not harm the identity of the prosecuted facts, and it cannot be applied to other provisions of law, which are prohibited from import and export, even if the identity of the accused is not harmed under the interest protection of the defendant, even if it does not infringe on other provisions of law, and thus, it is not clear that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal interest of Article 17 of the Customs Duties Act, which is prohibited from import and export since it does not constitute the prescribed purport of Article 10 of the same Act.

Justices White-sung (Presiding Justice)