Defendant 1 and four others

Defendant 2 and Prosecutor

The Kim Jong-sung(Court) and Lee Jong-young(Court)

Law Firm Squa et al.

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Gohap1335 Decided December 10, 2013

The remainder of the judgment of the court of first instance excluding the non-guilty part shall be reversed.

Defendant 2 and Defendant 4 shall be acquitted respectively.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, Defendant 1’s violation of each Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Customs Duties) listed in the separate sheet (1) Nos. 1-120 of the crime committed by Defendant 1, and the separate sheet (2), Defendant 3’s violation of each Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Customs Duties) No. 1-120 of the separate sheet (1) of the crime committed by Defendant 3, Defendant 10-19 of the separate list of crimes (2), and each violation of

The prosecutor's appeal against the acquittal portion in the judgment of the first instance is dismissed.

1. Summary of the facts charged

(a) Public offering relationship;

Defendant 5 Co., Ltd. (hereinafter, Defendant 5’s company) imported organic farming from Nonindicted Co. 1 to ○○ farm located at the time of Chinese flaging down, and in order to prevent the risk of punishment following the low-cost reporting, etc., Defendant 2 (△△ City) was entrusted with import and supply as an agent, and around 2005, Nonindicted Co. 2 entered into a contract with △△ City located at the time of the Chinese black Yegsan Geng-si, the Chinese Black Gegsan-si, and entrusted Defendant 4 (YO) with import as an agent.

Defendant 2 and Defendant 4 entrusted the import declaration to Defendant 3 (Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Do Governor), Defendant 5, Defendant 2, and Defendant 4: (a) supplied goods import price in compliance with the import declaration price, out of the supply price received from Defendant 5, to Defendant 3; and (b) paid the goods import price in compliance with the import declaration price; (c) sent the goods to Defendant 5 to Defendant 3; and (d) paid the remainder to the Chinese exporter through employees, relatives, etc.; and (e) reported at a lower price than the low-price import declaration price agreed upon with Defendant 5.

Defendant 3, at the request of Defendant 2 and Defendant 4, agreed with Defendant 2 and Defendant 4, taking into account the import declaration price of the general bean directly imported by himself, the import declaration price of the general bean, and the import declaration price of the general bean offered to the Korea Customs Service by the Korea Customs Service.

B. Details of crime

1) Joint principal offenders committed by Defendants 1, 2, and 3

In collusion on April 19, 2003, the Defendants evaded customs duties of 50,312,924,241 won in total over 135 times from December 9, 2002 to April 22, 2009, by filing an import declaration of USD 150 per ton of customs duties without filing a import declaration of USD 650 per ton of actual purchase price, and filing an import declaration of USD 150 per ton of customs duties.

2) Joint principal offenders by Defendant 1 and Defendant 4

In collusion on August 22, 2005, the Defendants evaded customs duties of KRW 2,801,925,307 on nine occasions in total from September 27, 2006, by failing to report the import price of USD 750 per ton of the actual purchase price, and filing a declaration of USD 200 per ton of customs duties at the import price, without reporting the import price of USD 750 per ton of the actual purchase price, as well as by evading customs duties of KRW 330,233,340 from September 27, 2006.

3) Joint principal offenders committed by Defendants 1, 4, and 3

In collusion on March 26, 2007, the Defendants evaded customs duties of 2,482,19,835 won on 10 occasions in total from December 3, 2007, by failing to report the import price of 850 dollars per ton of the actual purchase price, and filing a declaration of 303 USD 103 per ton of the customs duties with the import price, without reporting the import price of 252,97,625 dollars, as well as evading customs duties of 2,482,19,835 won by December 3, 2007.

4) Joint principal offenders by Defendant 2 and Defendant 3

In collusion with the Defendants on December 24, 2004, the Defendants evaded customs duties of KRW 2,642,50,855 on nine occasions in total, including the evasion of customs duties of KRW 294,903,385 per ton, by failing to report import price of USD 750 per ton per ton of the actual purchase price, and filing a declaration of USD 172 per ton of the actual purchase price, as import price, in importing 100 tons from the ▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽△△△△△△ in December 24, 2004, as described in the list of crimes (3).

5) From January 9, 2008 to April 22, 2009, Defendant 1, an employee of Defendant 5, evaded the total amount of 7,653,55,131 won of customs duties over 15 times in total, as described in the list of crimes (4) in relation to Defendant 5’s business.

2. The first instance judgment

A. Organization of issues

First, the key issue of this case is whether the actual purchase price in excess of the import price of this case can be calculated as a basis for calculating the evaded tax amount and applying the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (customs duties) and whether it can be acknowledged without reasonable doubt as to the fact that it exceeds the actual purchase price of the imported goods of this case even though it is difficult to specify the actual purchase price of the imported goods of this case.

(b) Whether the evaded tax amount is calculated;

In the case of a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Customs Duties), which is the facts charged of the instant case, there is no reasonable doubt about the evaded tax amount (low-reported amount) which constitutes the constituent elements of the instant crime, by each fact of individual import declaration. In this case, the customs import declaration price is secured. On the other hand, the relevant data related to the purchase contract (export contract) with the exporting company, which is a direct material for verifying the evaded tax amount (low-reported amount) and the actual purchase price (actual unit price) which is the premise thereof, and the data related to the additional payment by the exporting company of the difference due to the low-end return, are not entirely secured. However, the evidence submitted by the investigating agency as an indirect evidentiary material cannot be viewed as proving the evaded tax amount (low-reported amount) and the actual purchase price (actual unit price) which is the premise as stated in the facts charged.

C. Whether to recognize the fact of low-priced declaration

Article 6 (4) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which provides for an aggravated punishment based on the amount of evaded tax, cannot be applied to each of the facts charged in this case. However, if the fact of low-cost declaration itself is acknowledged, it can be viewed as a crime of violating the Customs Act without any changes in the indictment. In full view of all the circumstances, the fact of low-cost declaration prohibited by

D. Whether the principal agent of the instant crime and the accomplice are established

Article 270 (1) 1 of the Customs Act is a person who has supervised or led the import procedures, such as the determination of the reported price of each of the imported goods of this case. On the other hand, there is no sufficient evidence to recognize that Defendant 5 company may be the subject of a crime. In the case of Defendant 3, there is no sufficient evidence to regard that Defendant 3 was involved in the fact of false declaration even in the case of △△△△△ located in the case of Defendant 3.

E. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, each of the crimes listed in the list of crimes (in the case of Defendant 3, 10-19 parts among them), 10-1-7, 200-2, Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3’s list of crimes (1-120-2), Defendant 1, Defendant 4, and Defendant 3’s list of crimes (2), 2, and Defendant 3’s list of crimes (10-19 parts among them), 2, and Defendant 3’s list of crimes (3), 1-7, among the facts charged in the instant case, should be acquitted because the statute of limitations has expired (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the parts of the indictment in this case”), 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3’s list of crimes (121-135), 2, and 35, 3 (3), 8-9, 15-2, 35-2, and 15-2, 35-3, and 15-3, respectively, were found guilty.

If the judgment of the first instance is organized, it shall be as follows:

Defendant 5 who was acquitted of not guilty of not guilty of not guilty of not guilty of acquittal of Defendant 2 who was acquitted of not guilty of not guilty of not guilty of not guilty of not guilty of not guilty of not guilty of not guilty of not guilty of not guilty of not guilty of not guilty of acquittal of Defendant 2 of not guilty of acquittal of Defendant 2 of not guilty of not guilty of not guilty of not guilty of not guilty of not guilty of not guilty of not guilty of not guilty of not guilty of not guilty of not guilty of not guilty of not guilty of not guilty of not guilty of (1) of crime inundation list (2) of crime list (2) (3) of crime sight table of (3) crime of

Note 2) A list of offenses (1) 121 - 135

3. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 2

(1) misunderstanding of facts

A) Whether the act constitutes a violation of the Customs Act by a low-end declaration

Although the defendant did not report the import price of the rise of organic farming at a low price and did not evade customs duties, the first instance court which convicted the defendant by mistake of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B) Whether the subject of the instant crime and the co-principal were established

The first instance court, which determined the defendant as the subject of the transaction that decided the purchase price of the organic farmer of this case by negotiating and determining the purchase price of the organic farmer of this case between the non-indicted 1 company and the non-indicted 1 company, is not the △△ City operated by the defendant but the defendant 5 company of food manufacturing business,

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment sentenced by the first instance court against the defendant is too unreasonable.

(b) Prosecutors;

(1) misunderstanding of facts

A) whether the evaded tax amount is specified

Defendant 5’s internal document contains materials related to the goods or mountainous district price, base price, import declaration price, etc. to be paid to the ▽▽▽▽△△△△△△△ Food. Defendant 1 also determined the actual import price differently from the goods or mountainous district price. Defendant 1 also determined the actual import price. Based on objective materials, Defendant 1 also determined the amount of evaded tax because the goods, base price, and import declaration price are re-specific based on objective materials, but the first instance court, while the customs import declaration price is secured, on the other hand, did not fully secure the additional materials related to the purchase contract (export contract) with the exporting company, which is the direct material for verifying the evaded tax amount and the actual purchase price (actual unit price) that is the premise thereof. Furthermore, the evidence submitted by the investigative agency with indirect evidentiary materials can be deemed as a unit price that can prove the fact of the low-end declaration itself. Furthermore, it is difficult to prove the fact that there is an error in the misapprehension of the legal principles regarding the amount of evaded tax (amount reported) and the actual purchase price (amount reported).

Even if the amount of evaded tax is not specified on the basis of the actual purchase price of domestic affairs, the transaction price of the goods of the same kind and quality under Article 31 of the Customs Act was specified on March 14, 2005 in the case of the two-year organic farming bean, organic farming bean, organic farming bean, organic farming bean, organic farming bean, organic farming bean, 2007, organic farming bean, organic farming bean, 2008, and organic farming beaban, etc.

B) Whether Defendant 1 and Defendant 5 constituted co-principals

Defendant 1, as the head of the department in charge of environment-friendly purchase, was in charge of purchasing for domestic organic farming, and Defendant 5, as the head of the department in charge of environment-friendly purchase, had Defendant 5 evade customs duties with the appearance of delivery by Defendant 5, through △△ City operated by Defendant 2, in order to avoid the risk of tax evasion, and to avoid the risk of tax evasion.

C) Whether Defendant 3 took part in the crime

Defendant 3 filed an import declaration for organic farming bees in the same manner as the import price of the general bean imported by himself, and when the customs house issues the low-price import declaration, Defendant 3 is responsible for the role of adjusting the import price in accordance with the “the import declaration base price and the warning base price of the general bean.” Defendant 2, including Defendant 2, and Defendant 4 related low-price, participated in the import declaration, and thus, there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The sentence sentenced by the first instance court to Defendant 2 is too unhued and unfair.

4. The judgment of this Court

A. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts

1) Whether the amount of evaded tax is specified with the actual unit price

A) Judgment of the first instance court

2002년산 및 2003년산 유기농 대두의 경우 수입물품의 실제단가는 피고인 2가 제공한 견적서 상 물품대와 일치함을 전제로 하고 있으나, 이에 관하여 피고인 5 회사측은 △△농산과 기준가격을 협상함에 있어 가격의 합리성을 설명하기 위한 참고자료의 하나로 △△농산이 주장하는 물품대를 기재한 것일 뿐 그 정확성 내지 진실성에 대한 담보가 없다고 주장하고, 피고인 2도 위 견적서상 물품대는 사실과 달리 임의로 기재한 것이라는 주장을 하고 있는바, 이는 공소사실에도 나타나듯이 △△농산이 피고인 5 회사에게 알려 준 신고가격보다 더 낮게 수입단가를 신고하여 그 차액 상당의 이익을 차지하는 기만적 행위를 자행한 점, 이 사건 유기농 대두의 수입주체는 피고인 5 회사가 아닌 △△농산으로 피고인 5 회사가 그 정확한 물품대에 관하여 알 수 있는 위치에 있었다고는 보기 어려운 점, 중국의 수출업체로부터의 직접 구매 방식 대신 △△농산 등 수입자를 통한 간접 구매 방식을 채택하면서 그 납품가 산정에 있어 국내산 일반 대두보다 20~30% 높게 목표가를 책정하고 수입자와 납품가 협상을 해 온 피고인 5 회사의 이 사건 수입물품 구매 시스템 하에서는 △△농산 등의 현지 실제 구입가격은 납품가 산정의 참고자료에 그치는데다가 계약재배방식으로 재배, 구매하는 이 사건 수입물품의 특성상 현지 일반 시세와 실제 구매가 사이에 일정한 편차가 있을 수 있다는 점, 2002년산 유기농 대두의 경우 수출업체는 ◎◎◎◎◎ CO. LTD, ◁◁◁◁◁CO. LTD이고, 2003년산의 경우 그 수출업체는 ◎◎◎◎◎CO. LTD, ▷▷▷▷▷CO. LTD로서 피고인 5 회사가 계약재배 단계에서부터 공소외 1 회사와 긴밀한 관계를 맺기 시작한 것으로 보이는 2004년 이후 ○○농장 생산 유기농 대두 수입의 경우와 달리, 다수의 농장 생산품을 △△농산이 모아 수입, 납품한 것으로 보이는 2002년산 및 2003년산의 경우에는 피고인 5 회사가 현지 매입 가격을 제대로 알지 못했을 가능성이 보다 큰 점 등에 비추어 위 각 주장이 사실일 가능성을 부정하기 어렵다 할 것이므로, 2002년산과 2003년산의 경우 검사가 제출한 증거만으로는 실제단가를 산정할 근거가 부족하다.

(6) In light of the fact that there is no evidence to verify the actual purchase price of the above-mentioned goods from the exporter to the 200-year agricultural industry, and that there is no difference between the defendant company and the 5-year agricultural industry, and that there is no specific data to calculate the unit price for the above-year agricultural industry; ② there is no specific data to calculate the actual unit price for the organic agricultural industry and the two-year agricultural industry; ③ there is no basis to calculate the actual unit price for the organic agricultural industry based on the premise that there is no difference between the actual purchase price of the above-year agricultural industry and the 2007-year agricultural industry based on the 200-year agricultural industry unit price for the above-year agricultural industry; and ③ there is no basis to calculate the actual unit price for the organic agricultural industry based on the premise that there is no difference between the actual purchase price of the above-year agricultural industry and the 2007-year agricultural industry unit price for the above-year organic agricultural industry.

B) The judgment of this Court

The number of crimes of tax evasion is based on the requirement of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes. In the event that a false declaration on the dutiable value, tariff rate, etc. of imported goods is filed at the time of each false import declaration, one crime is established at the time of each false import declaration, and strict proof is required for the elements such as the dutiable value, etc. for calculating the amount of tax evasion by each crime of tax evasion. In the case of a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes for the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes for the Aggravated Punishment, etc. (Customs Duties) in order to punish the amount of tax evasion if the amount of tax evasion exceeds a certain amount, it is necessary to apply the above legal doctrine and to prove the factors for calculating the amount of tax evasion by individual import declaration as well as the fact that the amount of tax evasion is more than a certain amount is included

Examining the reasoning of this part of the judgment of the first instance court in light of the records, the determination of the first instance is just, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts. In the case of the Organic 2002 No. 982 of the Investigation Record, the prosecutor argues that the actual purchase price of the organic raw material in the year 2003 is specified in the "Calculation of the Purchase Price of the Organic Gabot in the country" (No. 1057 of the Investigation Records), "e-mail of the Day Work Report" (No. 1057 of the Investigation Records), "Notice of the Calculation of the Price of the Local Babot in the Republic of Korea" (No. 1056 of the Investigation Records), and "The Calculation of the Price of the Permanent Gabot in the year 203" (No. 981 of the Investigation Records), but it is difficult for the prosecutor to present the unit price calculation of the price of the organic raw material in the year 2003 to 2000.

2) Whether the evaded tax amount is specified by the transaction price of the goods of the same kind and quality

A) Summary of the prosecutor’s assertion

A prosecutor asserts that, even if the amount of evaded tax is not specified based on the actual unit price of goods of the same kind and quality under Article 31 of the Customs Act even if the amount of evaded tax is not specified at the market price for the same kind and quality, the organic farming 2004 may be specified as the supplementary amount of evaded tax. The organic farming 2004 prescribed as the weekly report of March 14, 2005 (in accordance with Article 2033 of the Investigation Records), the organic farming 2004 prescribed as the purchase plan of 205 (in accordance with Article 2654 of the Investigation Records), the organic farming 2050, the organic farming 206 prescribed as the “non-Indicted 37 of the Investigation Records” prepared by Defendant 1 to Defendant 207 and the “non-Indicted 37 of the Investigation Records” made by Defendant 1 to Defendant 1, the representative director of the organic farming 2007, who sent his e-mail to Defendant 1, 2008.

B) The judgment of this Court

In principle, the determination of the dutiable value of imported goods shall be based on the actual purchase price (Article 30 of the Customs Act): Provided, That where it is impossible to determine the price actually paid or payable by a buyer for the goods sold for export to Korea, the transaction price of the goods of the same kind and quality as the relevant goods, which is ① imported after shipping the relevant goods on the date of shipment (the date of shipment) or during the period in which there is no change in market conditions or commercial practices that affect the price before and after the date of shipment of the relevant goods, the relevant goods shall be the same as the relevant goods; ② the transaction stage, volume, distance, mode of transport, etc. shall be the same as the relevant goods; and where there is a difference between the two goods, the dutiable value shall be determined based on the price meeting the requirements that the difference is adjusted (Article 31(1) of the Customs Act).

However, the prosecutor's report on March 14, 2005 on the rise in the mountainous district of organic farming, and the e-mail sent by Defendant 1 to Nonindicted 3, the representative director of Defendant 5 on July 7, 2008, and the e-mail, etc., "the case against bee for bee for bee for bee for bee for be" sent by Nonindicted 4 to Defendant 1, which was presented by Defendant 5 to Defendant 1, are merely internal data sent by Defendant 5 to the U.S. corporation at the head office of Defendant 5 in purchasing organic farming from Nonindicted Company 1, and the purchase plan in 2005 and the Chinese mountainous district price change trend are merely based on Defendant 1's statement and can not be viewed as the transaction price of the same kind and quality goods whose dutiable value is recognized. On the other hand, the prosecutor's specific request for the evasion or evasion of customs duties under Article 35 of the Customs Act (05-8) can not be asserted by the prosecutor as follows.

3) Whether Defendant 1 and Defendant 5 jointly committed a crime, and whether Defendant 3 took part in the crime

Examining the judgment of the court of first instance in comparison with the records, the above judgment of the court of first instance is just, and it does not seem that there was an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding facts as pointed out by the prosecutor in the judgment of the court of first instance, as well as the crime committed by the court of first instance and the crime committed by the defendant 3 on the part of the court of first instance on the premise that the crime committed by the defendant 5 is committed by the other defendants. For the reasons delineated below, since the evaded tax amount cannot be specified as to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Customs Duties) against the defendant 1, 2, and 4, it is deemed that there is no evidence of crime, the crime committed by the defendant 5,

B. Judgment on the mistake of facts by Defendant 2

1) The first instance judgment

The first instance court found the defendant guilty of the violation of the Customs Act without changing the indictment for the crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Customs Duties) on the premise that the fact of the low-price declaration prohibited by the Customs Act itself is sufficiently recognized, even though the defendant could not clearly specify the actual purchase price of the non-indicted 1 company and the tax evasion amount based thereon.

2) The judgment of this Court

However, in order to recognize the establishment of a crime of violating the Customs Act under Article 269(2) of the Customs Act, it requires that the amount of evaded tax should be specified by the act of importing the goods without filing a declaration in accordance with Article 241(1) of the Customs Act. A crime of tax evasion is the legal interest of securing customs duties on the imported goods. As such, the degree of infringement of the legal interest due to the result of a crime, which is the result of the crime, is expressed in an intensive manner, and the State’s infringement on the right to impose tax, is the most important factor in determining the quality of the crime. Article 260(2) of the Customs Act provides that “A person who imports the goods without filing a declaration in accordance with Article 241(1) and (2) or 244(1) of the Customs Act shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than five years or by a fine equivalent to ten times the amount of customs duties and the cost of the goods, which would result in the failure to punish the amount of the tax evasion without any specific penalty.

In this case, as indicated in the first instance court, the existence of the necessity and motive for Defendant 1’s statement, industrial practice, and relevant data to the same purport, Nonindicted 5’s statement, the price and local market price of some imported goods of this case, purchase price of similar goods, etc. (related to the rise or rise in Korea as well as the organic farming for which Defendant 5 U.S. corporations directly purchased from Nonindicted Company 1 and the import price of this case) can have doubts over the low-price declaration. However, in relation to the specification of the evaded tax amount, there is no evidence to specify the amount of tax evaded by the above low-price declaration. Furthermore, as to whether it is possible to calculate the evaded tax amount pursuant to the respective provisions of Articles 31 through 35 of the Customs Act, the first instance court did not admit the prosecutor’s specific request for the determination of the evaded tax amount pursuant to Articles 31 through 35 of the Customs Act on the date of the remaining 10th public prosecutor’s request for the determination of the evaded tax amount pursuant to Article 31 through 351 of the Customs Act.

3) Conclusion

Therefore, even if the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (customs duty) is not recognized, even if it is judged that there is no proof as to the evaded tax amount, which is the element of the crime, and it is not possible to find the defendant guilty of the violation of the Customs Act, in this case, the defendant should be acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that there is no proof of crime as to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (customs duty) No. 121-135 and each violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (customs duty) with respect to the crime committed against the defendant 2. However, the judgment of the court of first instance which found the defendant guilty of some violation of the Customs Act on the premise that

C. Ex officio determination

1) Part of the first instance judgment concerning misapprehension of legal principles

The first instance court rendered a judgment of acquittal on the ground that the statute of limitations expires, on the ground that the exempted portion of this case can not be specified, but the fact of the low price declaration can be applied to the offense of violating the Customs Act even without any changes in the indictment, since it is acknowledged that the exempted portion of this case can be applied to the offense of violating the Customs Act without any changes in the indictment.

As seen earlier, in order to recognize the establishment of a crime of violating the Customs Act by a false declaration, the tax evasion amount shall be specified. As examined in the aforementioned part of the judgment on the mistake of facts, as seen in the part of Defendant 2’s assertion on the acquittal of this case, there is no data to specify the amount of tax evaded by a false declaration, and there is no evidence to calculate the amount even if the method is based on the method of determination of a supplementary dutiable value under Article 31 of the Customs Act, and there is no record, so it is not recognized as a crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (customs duties) and the Customs Act, which is a reduced fact, shall not be found guilty. In this case, the judgment of acquittal on the ground of the expiration of the statute of limitations is not to be made on the ground of the crime of violating the Customs Act, which is the reduction of indictment, which is the fact that the prosecution has not been instituted, and it

Therefore, even though the judgment of the court of first instance should be acquitted on the acquittal portion of this case, it is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) Parts of the indictment following the prosecutor’s changes in indictment

The prosecutor, while maintaining the existing facts charged against Defendant 3 in the first instance, applied for the amendment of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes under the name of the preliminary crime; “Article 6(4)1 and (6)4 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes; Article 270(1)1 of the Customs Act; Article 32 of the Criminal Act” as the conjunctive applicable provisions; Article 32 of the Criminal Act as the conjunctive applicable provisions; Article 1, 2, and 4 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes; and Article 32 of the Act was added to the judgment by the court. The prosecutor’s appeal against Defendant 3 as to the main facts charged was examined as stated in the above 4-A. 3). Examining the ancillary points added, this part of the ancillary facts charged is premised on the establishment of crimes committed by Defendants 1, 2, and 4, who are co-offenders, and there is no proof of a criminal evasion of the part of the charges against Defendant 3.

5. Conclusion

Thus, Defendant 2's appeal is reasonable, and the part of acquittal in this case which the prosecutor appealed against all of the judgment of the court of first instance pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act is subject to ex officio reversal as to the judgment of the court of first instance pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the judgment of the court of first instance as to the acquittal in this case is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act and it is again decided as follows. The prosecutor's appeal as to the acquittal in the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed pursuant to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since there is no ground for appeal as to the part of acquittal in the judgment of the court of first instance, and it is so decided as per Disposition. [The judgment of the court of first instance as to the ancillary charges in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Customs punishment as added

The summary of the facts charged against Defendant 2 and Defendant 4 and the facts charged as to each violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Customs Duties) listed in the annexed Table 1-120, each violation of the annexed Table 1-120, Defendant 3’s attached Table 1-120, attached Table 1-10, attached Table 10-19, and each violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Customs Duties) listed in the annexed Table 1-7, and attached Table 1-7, is as described in Article 1-2(b), and Article 4-2(b) and (c)-1 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and thus, it constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime as seen in the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, thereby not guilty of each of the facts charged by Defendant 2, Defendant 4 and Defendant 1 and Defendant

[Attachment]

Judges Kim Sang-sung (Presiding Judge)

1) According to Article 270(1) of the Customs Act, the crime of violation of the Customs Act is a crime that constitutes imprisonment with prison labor for not more than three years or a fine, and Article 3 of the Addenda of the Criminal Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 8730 of Dec. 21, 2007) and Article 249(1)5 of the former Criminal Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 8730 of Dec. 21, 2007), the statute of limitations is three years for the crime of violation of the Customs Act, and the indictment of this case was filed on September 27, 2012 after three years from December 21, 2007.

Note 2) As set out in the annexed List of Offenses (4).

3) Article 25 of the Enforcement Decree of the Customs Act provides that “The goods of the same kind and quality in Article 31(1) of the Act are produced in the country which produces the imported goods concerned and are the same goods in all respects, including physical characteristics, quality and consumer reputation (including the same goods in all other respects, including the slight difference in appearance).”