Defendant 1 and one other

Mobile rupture (prosecution) and Yellow Jinia (public trial)

Attorney Lee Jae-sik (Ap. for all the defendants)

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Of the facts charged against Defendant 1, the fact of false reporting by taxpayers and Defendant 2 shall be acquitted.

Defendant 1 had been urged to pay customs duties equivalent to KRW 2,345,881,570 in total from December 2004, which were in arrears with customs duties of KRW 2,345,881,570, which were collected by the Korea Customs Service. As such, if it is clearly identified that the actual import price of imported goods was the Defendant, there is concern that the disposition on default should be executed on the relevant goods. As such, Defendant 1 filed an import declaration on the total amount of KRW 2,898,00,000 in total of 34 times from March 29, 2012 to April 26, 2012, as shown in the list of crimes in the attached Table, as shown in the list of crimes.

In addition, around early April 2012, the Defendant started an investigation into whether the Busan Customs Office was not a smuggling import or an illegal import of the above imported lecture, and during that investigation process, the fact that the Defendant requested an import declaration to the “○○○○○○” was revealed as the Defendant. On April 8, 2012, Nonindicted Party 1 prepared a false import agency contract as of March 22, 2012, and submitted it to the Busan Customs Office on April 9, 2012, as if Nonindicted Party 1 entrusted Nonindicted Party 2 with the affairs related to the import of the above lecture.

Accordingly, for the purpose of evading the execution of the disposition on default of customs duties, the Defendant concealed the ownership of KRW 2,898,000,000, total market price of the imported capital of KRW 828,000, which is the property owned by the Defendant, in a way that is unclear.

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness Nonindicted 8

1. Each police statement made against Nonindicted 5 and Defendant 2

1. Each investigation report (the sequence 4, 18, 23, 43, 48, 51, 61 of the evidence list);

1. Each investigation report (number 9,19,42,47, 63, 74, 81);

1. A written accusation;

1. A written appraisal;

1. Answers to a request made to furnish data on details of disposition on default on a large amount of delinquent taxpayer (67,68 No. 133);

1. Each import declaration;

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 275-2 (1) of each Customs Act, Selection of Imprisonment

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

On December 29, 2005, even though the defendant had been sentenced to the 4-year suspended sentence on December 29, 2005 due to the violation of the Customs Act, he/she again commits the instant crime, and the fact that the scale of the instant crime is large, etc., taking into account the factors of sentencing unfavorable to him/her. However, taking into account the motive, means and result of the instant crime, the defendant's age, environment, criminal record, family relation, and circumstances after the commission of the crime, the sentence shall

1. Facts charged;

On March 15, 2012, Defendant 1 requested Defendant 2, a director of the Agricultural Products Import Company of Busan Jung-gu ( Address omitted), to vicariously file an import declaration of the Han River intended to import from China in the name of “○○○○○○○○,” and Defendant 2 consented.

As such, on March 28, 2012, Defendants conspired to file an import declaration with the Busan Customs office on March 29, 2012 on the amount equivalent to KRW 10,455,892 of the cost of the Chinese Han River 23,000 kilograms of China brought into the Busan Port on March 28, 2012, Defendant 1 filed a false declaration on the taxpayer to “○○○○○○,” notwithstanding the fact that Defendant 1 is a person liable for the actual import of the said Han River, and thereafter filed a false declaration on the taxpayer to “○○,” from that time on April 26, 2012, as indicated in the separate list of crimes “Crimes of False Report” in the attached Table, at least 34 times in total, on the aggregate of KRW 375,773,265 of the cost of the Chinese Han River 828,00 kilograms of Korea’s KRW 375,773,265.

2. Determination

With respect to the indictment that this part of the facts charged against the Defendants constitutes Article 276(1)4 and Article 241(1) of the former Customs Act (amended by Act No. 11602, Jan. 1, 2013), the Defendants and the defense counsel asserts that “taxpayer” is not subject to the prohibition of false declaration of the Customs Act.

In light of the above, Article 241(1) of the Customs Act provides that "where a taxpayer intends to export, import, or return goods, he/she shall report to the head of a customs office the name, standard, quantity, and price of the relevant goods and other matters prescribed by Presidential Decree" and Article 242 of the Customs Act provides that "the person liable to pay taxes shall file a report under Article 241 in the name of the owner of the goods or a licensed customs broker, etc." and Article 19(1)1 of the Customs Act provides that "the person liable to pay taxes shall file a report under Article 241 shall be the name of the owner of the goods or the licensed customs broker, etc." However, in practice, the person liable to pay taxes cannot be deemed to fall under the subject of reporting under Article 241(1) of the Customs Act, and even if the person liable to pay taxes falls under the subject of administrative sanctions, regardless of whether the person liable to pay taxes is subject to sanctions."

Therefore, this part of the facts charged does not constitute a crime of false declaration which is governed by Article 276 (1) 4 of the Customs Act, and thus, is not guilty under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

[Attachment]

Judges Cho Jae-chul