The case holding that the country of origin of goods produced in a foreign country under Article 38 of the former Foreign Trade Act constitutes "the act of exporting goods by pretending that the country of origin of goods produced in a foreign country is the Republic of Korea" as prohibited under Article 38 of the former Foreign Trade Act, even if the country of origin certificate was issued with a false certificate of origin indicating the country of origin in the Republic of Korea, and then submitted it to the bank along

Article 38 of the former Foreign Trade Act (amended by Act No. 9154 of Dec. 19, 2008) provides that the purpose of the provision is to establish a fair trade order by prohibiting the export of foreign-produced goods by pretending them to domestic goods or selling them in a foreign country, and to prevent a decline in credit rating in domestic goods due to the distribution of foreign-produced goods, etc., the case affirming the judgment below that the act of exporting the goods with the false certificate of origin constitutes an act of exporting the goods with the false certificate of origin indicated in the provision of the above Article 38 of the former Foreign Trade Act (amended by Act No. 9154 of Dec. 19, 2008) constitutes an act of exporting the goods in a foreign country with the false certificate of origin indicated in the provision of the above Article 38 of the former Foreign Trade Act (amended by Act No. 9154 of Dec. 19, 2008), and both the act of exporting the goods with the false certificate of origin indicated in the provision of the above domestic goods constitutes a simple import declaration of the Republic of China.

Articles 38, 53(2)8 (see current Article 53-2 subparag. 4), and 57 of the former Foreign Trade Act (Amended by Act No. 9154, Dec. 19, 2008);

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Cheongju District Court Decision 2009No588 Decided August 12, 2009

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 38 of the former Foreign Trade Act (amended by Act No. 9154 of Dec. 19, 2008; hereinafter the same) provides that "No person shall export or sell any goods, etc. produced in a foreign country (including goods, etc. produced in a foreign country and produced in a foreign country and undergone simple processing activities prescribed by Presidential Decree) under the presumption that the country of origin of the goods, etc. produced in the foreign country is the Republic of Korea by forging or altering a certificate of origin or falsely indicating the country of origin on the goods, etc." (Article 53 (2) 8 of the Act provides that any person who violates Article 38 of the Act shall be punished, while the representative, etc. of a corporation commits a violation of Article 57 of the Act with respect to the business of the corporation, other than the offender shall be punished.

The purpose of Article 38 of the former Foreign Trade Act is to establish a fair trade order and prevent the decline in credit rating of domestic goods following the sale of foreign goods by pretending to be domestically produced goods, and to prevent the act of exporting foreign goods from being exported or selling them in a foreign country. The phrase “a false representation of the country of origin certificate”, “a false representation of the country of origin on the goods, etc.,” and “a false representation of the country of origin on the goods, etc.,” both are merely examples of “a false representation of the country of origin” as if the country of origin of the goods produced in a foreign country is the Republic of Korea. The exporter’s act of exporting the goods by falsely issuing the country of origin certificate, and the exporter’s act of exporting the goods by falsely marking the country of origin to the country of origin with the goods issued by the country of origin certificate, and the act of exporting the goods with the false country of origin certificate constitutes a “an act of exporting the goods to the country of origin” under the pertinent domestic goods’s name, and there is no substantial difference between the two domestic goods issued by Defendant 1 to the importer.

Although it is inappropriate for the court below to determine that Defendant 1’s act constitutes “an act of falsely indicating the origin of goods, etc.”, it is deemed that the act was in violation of Article 38 of the former Foreign Trade Act, and thus, the court below found the Defendants guilty. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to interpretation of

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

Justices Cha Han-sung (Presiding Justice)