The meaning of "goods" subject to forfeiture stipulated in Article 180 of the Customs Act;

The "goods" subject to forfeiture in cases where customs duties are exempted by deceit or other unlawful means stipulated in Article 180 of the Customs Act refers only to the goods subjected to the exemption of customs duties by deceit or other unlawful means. Thus, in cases where there is a mixture of goods subject to exemption of customs duties with legitimate import goods by deceit or other improper means, only electronic goods should be confiscated.

Article 180 of the Customs Act

Defendant

Defendant and Prosecutor

Seoul District Criminal Court (71 High Court Decision 71 High Court Decision 791)

【Court Decision 73Do2716 delivered on October 12, 1976】

We reverse the original judgment.

The defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,700,000.

When the above fine is not paid, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting the amount of KRW 5,000 into one day.

In case of detention days prior to the rendering of a judgment, twenty days shall be included in the period of confinement to the original sentence.

Of the 80kigs (one copy out of No. 4) of the algorasan scarsan angle seized, it shall be confiscated from the defendant.

The summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant's defense counsel is as follows: First, the defendant did not have committed this case. The court below found the defendant guilty with the rules of evidence. The judgment of the court below is against the rules of evidence which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and there is a misunderstanding of facts, and second, even if the court below found the defendant guilty, the confiscation against the whole quantity of 200 kispospospospospospospo above 80 kisposposposposposposposposposposposponding to the judgment, and the summary of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor

Therefore, first, the first point of appeal of the defendant is examined in light of the records of this case, and since the defendant's facts charged can be sufficiently recognized, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of facts or violation of the rules of evidence, as otherwise pointed out in the court below's process of fact-finding. Thus, the grounds of appeal as to the violation of the rules of evidence cannot be accepted.

The following reasons for appeal are as follows. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, when the defendant acquired 600 U.S. non-tax-free distant water fisheries from Non-indicted Pungdong Industrial Co., Ltd. on March 9, 1971, and imported Alganasan, the court below acknowledged that the above 3 non-indicted M.O.B. was exempted from the above 200 gramgramg of Almamamagsan, which was received from the non-indicted, and the above 200 gramg of Almagsan, which was imported from the above Mamagdong Industrial Co., Ltd., Ltd., in the name of the non-indicted 3 non-indicted 120 gram, and then exempted from the above 80 gram of the above 120 gram, which was the legitimate import quantity, and applied the above 20 gram of the above 20 gram of the customs clearance to the defendant's 201 gram of the above 120 gram of the import quantity.

However, the "goods" subject to forfeiture in cases where customs duties are exempted by deceit or other unlawful means stipulated in Article 180 of the current Customs Act refers to only the goods which were exempted from customs duties by deceit or other unlawful means. In this case, if the criminal facts of the defendant are the same as above, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles of forfeiture as stipulated in Article 180 of the above Customs Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles of forfeiture as stipulated in Article 180 of the above Customs Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, since the defendant's appeal is well-grounded, the judgment of the court below is not reversed without determining the prosecutor's grounds of appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the members shall be decided again after pleading.

As stated in each column of the judgment below, the criminal facts of the defendant recognized as a party member and the summary of the evidence are identical to those of the judgment below, and all of them are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

The so-called "nomenclature" of the defendant's decision falls under Articles 182 (2), 180 (2) and (1) of the Customs Act, and the defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,700,000 within the scope of the prescribed amount of the fine. If the above fine is not paid under Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act, the period calculated by converting the amount of KRW 5,000 into one day shall be included in the old house for the period of detention, and the above fine of KRW 20 days shall be included in the period of detention prior to the declaration of the judgment by the court below by Article 57 of the Criminal Act, and the seized 80 gramg of Alrascsan (No. 4) of the number of detention days prior to the declaration of the judgment by the court below by Article 57 of the Criminal Act shall be confiscated from the defendant under the latter part of Article 180 (1) of the Customs Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Limited Jin-jin (Presiding Judge)