logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2014.01.24 2013노2912
관세법위반
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The Defendants of the gist of the grounds for appeal are guilty of the facts charged of the instant case, since they did not voluntarily file an export declaration, despite their duty to file an export declaration with the customs office as the owner of the remote area in question at the time of exportation of the instant remote area, and did not confirm whether the domestic logistics company has filed an export declaration.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts.

2. Determination

A. Defendant A is the representative director of Defendant B, and Defendant B is a corporation that runs wholesale and retail business in remote areas.

1) When the Defendant intends to export the goods of this case, he shall report to the customs collector the description, specification, quantity, price, and other matters prescribed by the Presidential Decree. Nevertheless, on October 3, 2007, the Defendant exported the goods of this case into the E Trade in China without filing an export declaration with the customs office on October 3, 2007, and sealed 4 rolls in remote areas equivalent to KRW 36,200. The Defendant, including this, exported the goods of this case from around that time to March 31, 2010 by the same method 48 times in total as indicated in the list of crimes in the attached Table of the lower judgment, and exported the goods of this case without filing an export declaration on KRW 253,551,650 in the same way as indicated in the list of crimes in the lower judgment.

B. The lower court’s judgment: (a) there is insufficient evidence to support that the Defendants exported out of the instant charges the details of transactions attached to the lower judgment; and (b) the remainder of the charges except the details of transactions attached to the lower judgment is acknowledged by the records as follows; (c) the Defendants received orders from the Chinese Trade Office to deliver remote areas by telephone or facsimile to the domestic logistics company; and (d) subsequently, delivered such remote areas to the domestic logistics company.

arrow