(a) Indictment without stating the method of crime that constitutes a special constituent element and the effect of institution of the indictment;

B. Whether the indictment procedure is appropriate, which states that the indictment does not indicate the method of fraud and only states that the indictment is evaded in a timely manner, with respect to the crime of evading customs duties

A. The facts charged refers to a specific fact that satisfies the requirements for special composition of a crime, and the time, place and method of a crime shall be specified in the indictment so that the facts constituting the requirements for special composition of a crime can be specified in the indictment. If it is impossible to clearly specify the facts charged because the indictment does not contain the method of a crime, the indictment procedure will be invalid.

B. The elements of the crime of evading customs duties are to be reduced by fraudulent or other unlawful means. As such, the prosecutor must specify the elements of the crime in the indictment specifically in which the defendant's fraudulent or other unlawful means in evading customs duties can be specified. However, the prosecutor must always state only the abstract elements such as "by means of death....... in the indictment," and release other goods stored in the bonded storage device as stated in the indictment without obtaining an import license. Thus, it cannot be readily concluded that the indictment is fraudulent because the specific facts meeting the special elements of the crime are not specified in the indictment, and thus the indictment procedure is unlawful.

(b)Article 254 of the Criminal Procedure Act; Article 180 of the Customs Act; Article 6(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes;

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Doh-young

Daegu High Court Decision 83No1553 delivered on February 3, 1984

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

Before determining the grounds of appeal by the defendant and his defense counsel, this paper examined ex officio.

1. The term "the original facts charged" refers to a specific fact that satisfies the requirements for special composition of a crime, and the time, place and method of the crime in the indictment shall be specified in the indictment itself so that the facts constituting the requirements for special composition of the crime can be specified, and if it is clearly impossible to specify the facts due to the lack of the method of the crime in the indictment, the procedure of the indictment shall be null and void in violation of the provisions of Acts.

2. According to the indictment of this case, at around 19:00 on April 6, 1983, the defendant conspired with the non-indicted 1 and three others, and the defendant applied the total amount of KRW 65,352,210 to the total amount of KRW 32,676,105 and KRW 1,633,80 as well as the defense of the defense of the defendant under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes against Non-indicted 1 and 1135, the Busan Shipping Daegu High-ro 2,4135, and the total amount of KRW 65,35,210 as well as KRW 70,00, and the total amount of KRW 32,676,105 and KRW 1,63,804 as stated in the indictment of this case.

3. However, Article 6(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, which provides for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Customs Duties, and Article 180 of the Customs Act, it is clear that the act of evading customs duties is likely to be reduced by fraudulent or other unlawful means. As such, a prosecutor can only specify the elements of a crime in the indictment, although the defendant, who uses fraudulent or other unlawful methods in evading customs duties in this case, can be specified in a concrete indictment, the elements of a crime should be stated in the indictment. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Customs Duties without obtaining a license for import of goods stored in a bonded device, and it cannot be readily determined that it is a method of fraud immediately, and it is not necessary to specify specific facts that meet the requirements for special composition of the crime, which is the method of fraud, and thus, the court below should have ruled that the indictment procedure of this case does not constitute a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Violations of Public Prosecution without the indictment procedure.

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

Justices Kang Jong-young (Presiding Justice)