(a) Timing for crimes of use other than those provided for in Articles 186-2 (1) and 27 (2) of the Customs Act;

(b) The meaning of the amount of reduced or exempted customs duties under Article 186-2(1) of the Customs Act

C. Whether the provisions of the General Provisions of the Criminal Act apply to the native accomplice

A. With respect to the acquisition of a vehicle as a public goods of the foreign embassy in Korea for which five years have not passed since the customs exemption was granted, the agreement is made to purchase the said vehicle without obtaining prior approval from the customs collector, and if the said vehicle was received by paying a part of the purchase price, the crime of using the said vehicle for purposes other than those stipulated in Articles 186-2 and 27(2) of the Customs Act shall be deemed to have been established. Thus, even if the said contract was terminated later and the seller was forced to keep the said vehicle in custody due to the seller’s failure to refund the purchase price, such reason does not affect the crime of using the said vehicle for purposes other than those established.

(b)for the purpose of Article 186bis(1) of the Customs Act, the term "tax amount reduced or exempted" means the tax amount reduced or exempted at the time of importation;

C. In relation to the existence of two or more acts such as transfer and acquisition, there is no application of the general provisions on accomplices in the Criminal Act, and therefore, there is no co-offenders relationship with regard to the other party’s crime.

(b)Articles 186-2(1) and 27(2)(c) of the Customs Act;

C. Supreme Court Decision 84Do2427 delivered on March 12, 1985

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 85No4675 delivered on November 4, 1987

All the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Criminal Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to Defendant 1’s ground of appeal

According to Article 194(2) of the Customs Act, in cases where Article 16(2) of the Criminal Act applies to a person who commits an act in violation of the penal provisions of the Customs Act for the purpose of acquiring a vehicle of this case, it shall not be exempted from the liability for the crime of using the vehicle for the purpose other than the duty-free goods under Articles 186-2 and 27(2) of the Customs Act, even though he was aware of the fact that the defendant had to obtain prior approval from the head of customs office for the vehicle of this case for which five years have not passed since customs duties were exempted as the official goods of foreign embassies in Korea as in the vehicle of this case, as in the vehicle of this case, as in the vehicle of this case, since the defendant agreed to purchase the vehicle of this case without prior approval from the head of customs office, and paid part of the purchase price, and received part of the vehicle of this case, and thus, the crime of using the vehicle of this case is established for the purpose other than the above crime of using the vehicle of this case.

However, according to the above Article 186-2 (1) of the Customs Act, where a fine is imposed on a person who violates the provisions of Article 27 (2) of the Customs Act, the person shall be punished by a fine equivalent to two to five times the amount of the reduced or exempted customs duties. Meanwhile, the term "amount of the reduced or exempted customs duties" means the amount of the reduced or exempted customs duties at the time of import. According to the statement in the import declaration for the automobile of this case employed by the court below, the amount of the customs duties at the time of import of the automobile of this case shall be stated as KRW 1,479,016, and if the amount of the reduced or exempted customs duties at the time of import, the defendant shall not be punished by a fine exceeding five times the above amount of the customs duties. Thus, the court below shall examine whether the amount of the customs duties stated in the above import declaration should be determined on the basis of the accurate amount of customs duties at the time of import and determine the scope of the amount of the reduced or exempted customs duties, and it shall not be deemed unlawful as well as well as evidence.

2. As to Defendant 2’s ground of appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below recognized that the defendant, in collusion with the above defendant, purchased the automobile of this case from the Ori-ri, an employee of the Embassy of the Netherlands without prior approval of the customs collector, and acquired it, and decided that the defendant was a co-principal of the crime of use for purposes other

However, according to the records, there is no evidence to deem that the defendant acquired the automobile of this case in collusion with the defendant. However, since the defendant was entrusted to sell the automobile of this case from the above 13 million won, an official of the Embassy Embassy, the defendant was entrusted to purchase the automobile of this case from the above 1.3 million won, and the defendant was allowed to purchase it from the above 1.3 million won, and only the fact that he received part of the purchase price of this case from the above 1.0 million won and transferred it to the above 1.00 won, and there is only a fact that he received the automobile of this case from the above 1.00 won and transferred it to the above 2.0 billion won, there is no provision of the general criminal law on the accomplice in relation to the other 2 or more acts such as the transfer and takeover of this case. Thus, since there is no co-offender relation with the other party's crime, it is only necessary to recommend the defendant to purchase the automobile of this case from the standpoint of the transferor by entrustment of sale to the above 1.

Nevertheless, the court below's finding the defendant as a co-principal with regard to the crime of use for the above purpose is erroneous or erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to co-principal with regard to the crime of use for the above purpose. Therefore, the appeal pointing this out has merit.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment against the Defendants is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)