Whether “a person who has obtained a license under Article 137” under Article 181 subparag. 2 of the Customs Act includes a licensed customs broker who is the reported person (affirmative)

According to the provisions of Article 137-3 of the Customs Act, a declaration under the provisions of Article 137 shall be filed in the name of the owner, licensed customs broker, customs clearance corporation under Article 158, or customs broker corporation under Article 158-2. Thus, in the event that an import license is granted after filing a declaration as a licensed customs broker, a “person who has obtained a license under Article 137” in the application of Article 181-2 of the Customs Act shall be deemed to include a licensed customs broker who is the reported titleholder.

Article 181 subparagraph 2 of the Customs Act, Articles 137 and 137-3

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Attorney Kim Jong-soo

Busan District Court Decision 91No663 delivered on August 2, 1991

All appeals are dismissed.

The Defendants’ grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below cited the judgment of the court below, and found Defendant 1 as an employee of the Korea Customs Brokers Office and Defendant 2 as a licensed customs broker who runs the above licensed customs broker office, and Defendant 1 received a request for customs clearance procedures for the sunshine forest imported from Thailand and received a request from Nonindicted 1 to promptly take customs clearance procedures, and around May 26, 1989, Defendant 2 obtained a false declaration of import of the above goods by entering the food import declaration form with the official seal of the Director General of the Korea Quarantine and Quarantine Office on the food import declaration form with the seal of the Director General of the Korea Quarantine and Quarantine Office for the reason of loss of the food import declaration form on the food import declaration form with the official seal of the Director General of the Korea Quarantine and Quarantine Office, and confirmed Defendant 1 as to the above goods and imported goods by satisfying the conditions prescribed by the law of law of the law of the Republic of Korea on the 27th of the same month after filing an import declaration form with the above quarantine office on the 30th of the same month.

The theory of the lawsuit does not conflict with Article 137 and Article 181 (2) of the Customs Act, separate from the fact that the documents required for the import declaration of the food of this case were issued to the head of the customs office unfairly and the documents presented for the import declaration of this case are not in violation of Article 145 or Article 15 of the Customs Act. However, as long as the defendants had completed the import declaration with the method of fraud as they had completed the import declaration to the quarantine office, they meet the requirements for the crime of non-licensed import under Article 181 subparagraph 2 of the Customs Act, and the other argument of the lawsuit is merely an independent opinion, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the theory of the lawsuit.

In addition, the theory is that the food import declaration is not false or received in a fraudulent way, but it is merely a ground for the confirmation of legitimate fact, which is the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court, and the theory of lawsuit is not an appropriate precedent in this case.

In addition, the subject matter of Article 181(2) of the Customs Act is the person who has obtained a license under Article 137 of the same Act. In this case, the person who obtained a license in this case is the goods importer and the person who is liable for duty payment, and the customs broker office to which the defendants belong is merely the person responsible for customs clearance procedures. However, according to the provisions of Article 137-3 of the Customs Act, the report under Article 137 should be made in the name of the owner, the licensed customs broker, the customs broker under Article 158, or the customs broker under Article 158-2. Thus, in case where the import license is granted upon filing a report in the name of the licensed customs broker, the licensed customs broker who is the reported person shall be deemed to be included in the application of Article 137 in Article 181(2) of the same Act.

According to the records, the import declaration of this case is obvious that it was made in the name of Defendant 2 of the licensed customs broker office (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 108Da108), and there is no error of law such

In addition, even if the record is examined, there is no error of misunderstanding of facts such as the theory of lawsuit.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)