In the event that only a part of the actual imported quantity is reported to be imported in the course of importing agricultural fish, and the remaining quantity is falsely prepared in accordance with the reported quantity with the intention not to file an import declaration, and the agricultural fish is imported in a remarkably large quantity compared with the reported quantity by undergoing customs procedures, whether the crime of smuggling under Article 179(2)1 of the Customs Act is established for the imported quantity without filing an import declaration (affirmative)

Since an import declaration is an expression of intent of import made to the head of a customs office, if an import declaration is filed with respect to only a part of the actual imported quantity, and the remaining quantity is falsely prepared in accordance with the reported quantity with the intention of not making the import declaration, and if an import declaration is made with respect to a remarkably large quantity compared to the quantity declared through customs procedures, the farming and fishing of the imported quantity without making the import declaration cannot be recognized as identical to the farming and fishing of the reported quantity, and thus, a crime of smuggling import under Article 179 (2) 1 of the Customs Act is established.

Article 179(2)1 of the Customs Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and three others

Defendants

Attorney Park Jae-hee et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 99No1852 delivered on October 14, 1999

All appeals are dismissed. As to Defendant 1, 110 days out of the number of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence.

1. The court below, while establishing and operating the non-indicted corporation with Defendant 2 as the representative director, imported various active terms, such as farming and fishing, from China in the name of the above company, and sold them to the domestic frequency, etc., Defendant 1 and 2 reported that when 100% of the adjusted customs duties were imposed on the imported agricultural and fishing, only a part of the actual import quantity shall be imported at the time of import declaration with the intention to evade it, and the remaining quantity shall be prepared in accordance with the reported quantity of the bill of lading, inspection report and other documents, and there is no illegality in misunderstanding the legal principles as to the remaining quantity and 32,00 g above imported agricultural and fishing, from July 11, 1998, and Defendant 2 did not accept the above 1,000 g of the imported agricultural and fishing, and Defendant 2 did not report the remaining 1,000 g of the imported agricultural and fishing, and Defendant 2,260 g of the imported agricultural and fishing, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. Since an import declaration is an expression of intent of import made to the head of a customs office, if the import declaration is a declaration of intent to import only a part of the actual import quantity, and as recognized by the court below, if the remaining quantities were to be reported by the intention of not making an import declaration, and the import declaration was made by using a false document in line with the reported quantity, and if the quantity is remarkably larger than the quantity in which the import declaration was made by using a customs clearance procedure, the farming and fishing of the imported quantity without making an import declaration cannot be recognized as identical to the farming and fishing of the imported quantity, and thus, the crime of smuggling under Article 179(2)1 of the Customs Act is established (see Supreme Court Decision 84Do565, Jul. 24, 1984)

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal. Therefore, the above defendants' grounds of appeal on this point cannot be

3. The court below reversed the judgment of the court of first instance on the ground that the indictment against the defendant 1 and 2 was modified at the court below, and judged again, it cannot be deemed unlawful because the court below did not make any different judgment on the grounds of appeal against the above defendants. It is also reasonable that the court below found the defendant 2 guilty of all the facts charged for the offering of this case to the defendant 2, the delivery of third-party brain products, and the acquisition of third-party brain products against the defendant 4, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of the legal principles as to the bribery. Accordingly, the above defendants' grounds of appeal as to this point

4. The above defendant's assertion that the sentence of the court below against Defendant 3 who sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for less than 10 years is excessive cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

5. Therefore, all appeals shall be dismissed, and a part of the number of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Cho Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)