A. A person who commits a crime under Article 131(1) and (2) of the Criminal Act is a person who commits a crime under Articles 129 and 130 of the Criminal Act under Article 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes.

(b)the deduction of duty-free imported goods into "Ro-S" in the manufacture of the export goods with raw materials shall be recognized only as to the quantities offered for the manufacture of the export goods;

(c) the time it appears that there was the commencement of the enforcement of customs exemption;

(d)be subject to the Customs Duties Act for attempted special exemption from customs duties;

E. In a case where the defendant's appeal is reversed due to the reason for the appeal, if the reason for reversal is common to co-defendant, the original judgment must be reversed as in the same manner

A. A person who commits a crime under Article 131(1) and (2) of the Criminal Act is a person who commits a crime under Articles 129 and 130 of the Criminal Act under Article 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes.

(b) it is recognized that the deduction of the duty-free imported goods in the manufacture of the export goods with ‘law' is limited to the amount of goods offered for the manufacture of the export goods.

(c) the time it appears that there was the commencement of the enforcement of customs exemption;

(d) be subject to an attempted special duty exemption under the Customs Act for a attempted special duty exemption;

E. When the defendant's appeal is reversed due to the reason for the appeal, if the reason for reversal is common to co-defendant, the same original judgment should be reversed.

Article 2(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes; Article 131 of the Criminal Act; Article 32 of the Customs Act; Article 182(2) of the Customs Act; Article 6 of the Provisional Customs Act; Article 392 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant 1 and three others

Prosecutor

Seoul Criminal District Court Decision 68No338 delivered on July 25, 1969, Seoul High Court Decision 68No338 delivered on July 25, 1969

Of the original judgment, the part of the conviction against the defendant Lee Woo and the part of the conviction against the defendant Shin Jin and the same gark are reversed, respectively;

The case portion is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The prosecutor's appeal against the defendant's name seat, the same number of believerss, the same heading, and the defendant's name seat, and each appeal against Eins shall be dismissed.

The Prosecutor’s ground of appeal No. 1 was examined

Even after comparing the original judgment with the records, the original judgment is merely a material to suspect that the weight of the exported goods falls short of the description on the import pages, and there is no evidence to conclude that the defendant was exempted from the customs duties by exporting the whole quantity of insufficient quantity, and there is no evidence to prove that there is a violation of the rules of evidence or a violation of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance on the charges of violation of the Customs Act on the defendant's famous seat. Therefore, there is no reason to argue that the original judgment is inconsistent with the rules of evidence, since there is no evidence to conclude that the defendant was exempted from the customs duties.

The second ground of appeal No. 2

According to the indictment, it is clear that Defendant Shin Jin-ho and such Tae-ho were indicted only on the charge of attempted exemption from customs duties and special duties with respect to 209,225 pounds except for the part used in the manufacture of Na theory Don Don Don Don Don Don Don Don Don Don Don's 218,649, which provided security for customs duties to customs office and imported duty exemption from customs duties. Therefore, there

The third ground of appeal is examined as follows:

Examining Article 2(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes in the judgment on the grounds of appeal by Defendant 2, the original judgment is clear that the punishment on the person who commits a crime provided for in Article 129, 130 or 132 of the Criminal Act is not an aggravated provision on the person who commits a crime provided for in Article 131 of the Criminal Act. Thus, it is obvious that the original judgment applied Article 131 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes to the defendant who commits a crime provided for in Article 131 of the Criminal Act, and it is obvious that the lower court erred in applying the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes to the defendant who commits a crime provided for in Article 131 of the Criminal Act, and Article 131(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act is reversed, and Article 131 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes applies to the defendant's ex post facto bribery. However, Article 131(1) of the Criminal Act requires a public official or arbitrator who commits an unlawful act after committing a crime.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 2, 3, 1, 4, 2, 1-2, 4, 1-4, 1-2, 1-4, 2, 1-4, 1-2, 2, 1-3, 3, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2

Even after comparing the original judgment with the records, the court below acknowledged facts without the evidence except for the fact that the court below was prosecuted for the attempted facts of Article 2-1 at the time of original judgment, or violated the rules of evidence in the deliberation of evidence and fact-finding, or contradictory at the time of the theory of evidence. Thus, all arguments are groundless.

Defendant 3’s attorney lecture call, Defendant 3’s ground of appeal Nos. 3 and Defendant 4’s defense counsel’s ground of appeal Nos. 1-1 and 2-1;

According to the facts found in the judgment of the court below, in the manufacture of the export goods with Nagn's free import as Nag's raw materials, the amount equivalent to 21% of the import quantity shall be reduced to Ro-S. However, according to the records, the amount to be reduced to Ro-S shall be calculated as ro-s in the process of manufacturing the export goods using the imported raw materials, which merely means that the amount to be reduced to ro-s shall be reduced to ro-s in the process of manufacturing the export goods by using the imported raw materials. However, if the imported raw materials are used for other purposes without the date on which the export goods were supplied for the manufacture of the export goods from the beginning, the so-called ro-s reduction shall not be considered as a problem. Accordingly, the court below's decision on this purport is just and justified in finding that the whole quantity of the imported raw materials after recognizing the reduction of ro-Ss as to the amount offered for the manufacture of the export

Defendant 3’s attorney lecture call, grounds of appeal No. 5, and Defendant 4’s defense counsel’s ground of appeal No. 2, 3, and 4

After manufacturing or exporting export goods to be imported as raw materials such as the above defendant, etc., and then importing goods of the same quantity as the raw materials required by the export certification thereof, customs exemption is granted. If the above defendant et al. were to be avoided as if the whole export permission was pretended to export the whole quantity of the export permission and it was discovered that they were to be loaded, customs exemption was commenced for the import of goods of the same quantity as the raw materials required. Thus, the judgment of the court below holding to the same effect is without merit.

Defendant 3’s attorney lecture call, Defendant 6’s ground of appeal No. 6 and Defendant 4’s defense counsel’s ground of appeal No. 2-5

Even if there are some differences in the nature of customs duties and the special duties, the special duties are collected simultaneously with the customs duties, and the provisions of the Customs Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the special duties except as otherwise provided for in the Special Customs Act. Therefore, the court below's decision that the special duties were imposed by the Customs Act on attempted special duties, is just, and there is no reason to discuss them.

Defendant 3’s defense counsel’s ground of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 of the same defense counsel’s return to the bar, and the ground of appeal No. 2 of the Park Jong-chul’s return to the same defense counsel

According to the facts charged by the prosecutor (Article 3-3 of the indictment and Article 3-1 (2) (3) of the indictment, all of the criminal facts of Article 2-1, Article 2-2 and Article 2-3 of the original judgment with respect to Defendant 3 and 4 are indicted as a crime of attempted customs duties and attempted customs exemption, although it is obvious that the court below recognized and punished as a crime of attempted customs duties and attempted customs exemption with respect to the criminal facts of Article 2-1 and affected the conclusion of the judgment, there is an error of law in the judgment below, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the arguments are reasonable, and since this is common to Co-Defendant 1, this part of the judgment among the original judgment, the guilty part of the defendant's new Jink, the defendant's old Jink, the defendant's Hakk-ho, the ground of appeal No. 4 and the ground of appeal No. 7 of the Park Jong-young's letter of appeal against

The grounds of appeal No. 1 of this case are examined as follows: the Defendant’s name address, the Attorney Park Jong-hee, the Attorney Park Jong-young’s Counsel, the Attorney Park Jong-young’s Counsel, and the Attorney Lee Ha-tae’s Counsel of this case;

Even by comparing the original judgment with the records, it is difficult to find out that the facts were not based on evidence, or the logical rules or the empirical rules were tensions in the process of evidence preparation and fact-finding, or that there was a violation of the principles of the Criminal Procedure Act that drive away from the defendant's interest. Therefore, all arguments are groundless.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below as to the defendant's completion of the judgment and the conviction part as to the defendant's Shin-young, and such part of the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court, which is the court below. The prosecutor's appeal as to the defendant's name, new Jin-kin-kin-kin, the same new Jin-kin-kin, the same kin-kin's name,

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak Kim Kim-nam Kim Young-gu