Whether it constitutes importation in a case where the raw tin located in a bonded factory which is a licensed bonded area is brought into a customs area (negative)

The term "import" in the Customs Act means taking goods arriving in the Republic of Korea from a foreign country or goods for which an export license is granted into the Republic of Korea. Thus, even if the defendant's goods (cost) brought into a domestic customs area were in a bonded factory which is a licensed bonded area, such goods cannot be imported unless they fall under the goods under Article 2 (1) of the Customs Act.

Article 2(1) of the Customs Act, Article 181 of the Customs Act

Defendant 1 and two others

Prosecutor

Seoul High Court Decision 80No1099 delivered on November 20, 1981

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.

1. The term "import" in the Customs Act means taking goods which arrive in the Republic of Korea from a foreign country or goods for which an export license is granted into Korea (Article 2(1) of the Customs Act). Thus, even if small goods which Defendant 1 brought into a domestic bonded factory which is a licensed bonded area were located in a licensed bonded area, such goods cannot be imported unless they fall under goods under Article 2(1) of the Customs Act, and therefore, the so-called the defendant cannot be viewed as a crime of non-licensed import under Article 181 of the Customs Act. On the contrary of the opinion of the court below stating that there was an error of a wrong interpretation of the relevant provisions in the Customs Act, goods which are located in a bonded factory which is a licensed bonded area, without regard to their nature, shall be considered as imports if they were brought into the domestic bonded area, and it cannot be adopted on the premise that they constitute imports.

2. The author argues that the written appraisal of Lee Jae-chul's writing stating the origin of the goods written in the written appraisal of Lee Jae-chul's paper is the hub of the origin of the goods written in the court of first instance. However, according to the above stated statement in the court of first instance, the written appraisal is not a report of the present goods, but a report of the present appraisal is merely an entry of the market price and customs duties, based on the price of the sale, it is not a material to recognize the fact that the novels, which Defendant 1 brought from a bonded factory to a customs area, were foreign origin, and the contents written in the written appraisal of the prosecutor's protocol prepared by the public prosecutor as to Defendant 1, who pointed out the arguments, are not a material to recognize the above fact. In light of the records, the court below's incomplete deliberation and the court below's argument that there was an error of law in the misconception of facts due to the evidence preparation in violation of the rules of evidence, it cannot be accepted

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)