A. Whether a violation of Article 68 subparag. 5 of the Foreign Trade Act is separately established in addition to a violation of Article 181 subparag. 2 of the Customs Act, in case where an import license of the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy has been obtained in an unjust manner and a license of the head of a customs office has been obtained (affirmative) and in this case, the relation of the number of crimes (the

(b) Timing to commence the commission of a violation of subparagraph 2 of Article 181 of the Customs Act;

A. Article 68 subparag. 5 of the Foreign Trade Act, which is a punishment provision for the act approved for export and import by the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy by deceit or other unlawful means, and Article 181 subparag. 2 of the Customs Act, which is a punishment provision for the act permitted for export and import by the head of a customs office by reporting such conditions by such unlawful means as well as Article 181 subparag. 2 of the Customs Act, which is a punishment provision for the act permitted for export and import by the head of a customs office, shall be different from each other. Thus, if approval for import by the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy is obtained by unlawful means and a license for import by the head of a customs office is obtained by reporting such fact, a separate violation of Article 68 subparag. 5 of the Foreign Trade

B. The time of commencement of a violation of Article 181 subparagraph 2 of the Customs Act, which was completed by obtaining import approval from the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy by using a false letter of recommendation on import from the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy, shall be the time of import declaration against the customs collector.

(a)Article 19(1), Article 68(5) of the Foreign Trade Act, Article 137 and Article 181(2)2(a) of the Customs Act; Article 137 of the Criminal Act; Article 25 of the Criminal Act;

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 90No2423,1265 decided May 17, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Article 68 subparag. 5 of the Foreign Trade Act, which is a punishment provision for the export and entry of the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy by deceit or other unlawful means, and Article 181 subparag. 2 of the Customs Act, which is a punishment provision for the export and entry license of the head of the customs office by reporting such conditions in such unlawful means as above, shall be met, and Article 181 subparag. 2 of the Customs Act, which is a punishment provision for the export and entry license of the head of the customs office, shall be different from the competent authority, and in the legislative purpose and legal interest of the above, the difference between the two separate elements. Thus, in a case where approval for import of the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy is obtained by unlawful means and the import license of the head of the customs office is reported, a separate violation of Article 68 subparag.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below with the same purport is just, and there is no ground to criticize the judgment of the court below on the other legal principles.

2. Article 181 subparagraph 2 of the Customs Act of this case, which was duly granted import approval by using a false letter of import recommendation issued in the name of the head of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy, shall be deemed to have commenced a violation of Article 181 subparagraph 2 of the Customs Act of this case by the defendant who completed import approval by obtaining import approval from the head of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy. Thus, even if the forgery of the above letter of import recommendation and the import approval were made prior to the enforcement date of the above Act, the above provision of this Act shall apply to the act of this case after the enforcement date thereof.

The decision of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as otherwise alleged. All arguments are groundless.

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

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)