Defendant 1 and one other

Defendant

Maximum completion

Attorney Lee Do-young et al.

Busan District Court Decision 2002Da3775 delivered on June 16, 2003

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for one year and by imprisonment for eight months, respectively.

The number of detention days prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of the court below shall be 57 days for the defendant 1, and 28 days for the defendant 2 shall be included in the above punishment.

except that the execution of each of the above penalties shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Seized evidence1 through 24 shall be confiscated by Defendant 1.

A penalty of KRW 1,613,648,816 shall be additionally collected from Defendant 1.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles: Vehicles exported by Defendant 1 are the same as the vehicle originally declared in the facts charged in this case, but they are merely different from the chassis number indicating the vehicle and the registration certificate of another vehicle cancelled or cancelled, and thus cannot be deemed to have exported "other goods" under Article 269(3)2 of the Customs Act applied by the court below, on the ground that the identity of the exported goods can not be recognized as being identical. However, even though the illegal export crime under Article 270(3) of the Customs Act is established, the court below convicted the facts charged in this part of the facts charged, which led to misconception of facts or erroneous application of the law.

B. Unreasonable sentencing: In light of the various circumstances indicated in the instant case, including that the instant vehicles exported by the Defendants are not related to illegal acts, such as theft, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles: According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, Defendant 1 can fully recognize the fact that Defendant 1 submitted a false report to the customs office as if he were to export vehicles that were actually exported as shown in the crime sight table 6 and their manufacturing company, vehicle type or size (inn and annual appearance) and other vehicles that are not recognized to be identical to the original judgment. Thus, Defendant 1’s above assertion is without merit.

B. Unreasonable sentencing: In light of the sentencing conditions under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, including the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, home environment, the absence of criminal power, and the fact that the exported vehicles in this case appear not to be related to illegal acts, but to be the vehicles that underwent normal cancellation procedures, such as theft, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the defendants' appeal is well-grounded, and the following decision is rendered again after pleading.

Since each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below is the same as that of the judgment below, all of them shall be cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Defendants: Articles 225, 229, 231, 234, and 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 78 and 71 of the Automobile Management Act;

Defendant 1: Article 269(3)2 of the Customs Act; Article 179(3) of the former Customs Act (amended by Act No. 6305 of October 29, 200)

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Code

1. Inclusion of days of detention in detention;

Article 57 of the Criminal Code

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Code

1. Confiscation (Defendant 1);

Article 48(1)2 and (3) of the Criminal Act

1. Collection (Defendant 1);

Article 282(3) and (2) of the Customs Act; Article 198(3) and (2) of the former Customs Act

Judges Bunk (Presiding Judge)