As long as an import declaration has been duly filed, no receipt or attempt of a crime of evading customs duties shall be made, and if the method of the declaration itself falls under fraudulent and other unlawful means, the method shall be specified in the reasons for the judgment.

If an import declaration was duly filed by means of fraud or other unjust methods, it cannot be deemed as a crime of evading customs duties, and if the import declaration was filed by deceit or other unjust methods, it shall not be deemed as an import declaration under the Commercial Act, and the fact that the import declaration was filed without hearing and expressing the method of such import declaration cannot be readily denied the criminal intent of evading customs duties. The court below erred by misapprehending the law of evading customs duties and by failing to specify the facts of the offense in the conviction.

Article 180 of the Customs Act, Article 329(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Seoul Criminal District Court Decision 68No441 delivered on July 15, 1969, Seoul Criminal District Court Decision 68No441 delivered on July 15, 1969

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The defendant's defense counsel's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, even if there was an objective form that can be seen as taking the form of an import declaration, if the act of declaration was used as one of the methods for evading customs duties, it cannot be denied if such declaration was simply made. It is obvious that the act of declaration can be the object of the crime of evading customs duties even if the goods are not the prohibited import goods, it can be the object of the crime of evading customs duties. The court below held that the defendant's act of evading customs duties could not be found to be an unlawful act of evading customs duties by misunderstanding the law and misunderstanding the customs duty, and even if it was not an unlawful act of evading customs duties, it cannot be found that there was an unlawful act of evading customs duties by misunderstanding the law and misunderstanding the customs duty, and that there was no unlawful method of evading customs duties by misunderstanding the customs duty and breaking the customs duty and breaking the import declaration to the employees of the Kim customs, and that there was no unlawful method of breaking the customs duty declaration to the extent that it did not constitute an unlawful act of evading customs duties.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Judge Han-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court