(a) The meaning of "private or other unlawful means" as prescribed in Article 180 of the Customs Act;

(b) Where a traveler intentionally omits in his/her report on personal effects and the entry of his/her original seat as modified and the criminal intent of evading customs duties;

(c) Where the personal effects of travelers are placed above the customs inspection unit itself may be deemed as their personal effects;

D. Whether an act of evading customs duties “in a deceitful or other unlawful manner” under Article 180 of the Customs Act may be deemed as an act of evading customs duties, in case where a person intentionally omits gold and self-refinites in writing at the time of making a declaration on personal effects of a traveler and makes it difficult to find them easily, and falsely answers questions of a customs inspector for customs clearance, and attempts to bring them into Korea without any customs burden, by making a false answer to questions of a customs inspector (affirmative)

A. Article 180 of the Customs Act provides that "the purpose of this Act is to enable tax evasion as a result, all acts which are considered to be fraudulent and illegal by social norms, and include both active and passive acts (influence) as well as active (influence).

(b) The omission, in itself, of the declaration on personal effects of a traveler, on purpose, inasmuch as the submission and submission of the declaration on personal effects by a traveler is not a legal obligation, but as long as the declaration is deemed to require a written declaration at the declaration, the omission may be deemed to have caused the criminal intent of the omission of customs duties.

C. The issue of authorization is only one declaration that sets personal effects above the customs inspection unit, and the issue of authorization is only one declaration provided that customs officers can easily recognize the contents of current personal effects in light of the current situation of customs administration that must complete customs clearance procedures with respect to a large number of personal effects within a short time.

D. In a case where: (a) gold and self-refluence were intentionally omitted when making a declaration of personal effects of a traveler; (b) was sealed as a material without any external value by packaging it as a newspaper site; (c) was put in a double-type document room; and (d) attempted to answer questions of a customs officer about what is low in the newspaper site and to bring it into the newspaper site without any customs burden, then the above bank was placed in a false answer to questions of a customs officer; and (d) was placed in a false manner at the customs prosecutor’s subrogation, it cannot be deemed a legitimate declaration; and (b) when considering a series of acts comprehensively, it does not constitute a lawful declaration, which represents a criminal intent of evasion of customs duties; and (c) committed fraud or an act recognized as a fraudulent act by social norms that

(c)Paragraph 1 (c) of Article 180 of the Customs Act;

A.B.D. Supreme Court Decision 90Do683 Decided September 28, 1990 (Gong1990, 2246) (Gong1991, 680) Decided December 26, 1990 (Gong1991, 680). Supreme Court Decision 87Do1571 Decided November 24, 1987 (Gong198, 199) (Gong190, 1298) Decided May 8, 1990

Defendant

Prosecutor

Attorney Park Dong-soo

Seoul High Court Decision 90No1604 delivered on August 3, 1990

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On January 3, 190. 11:00, the court below found that the defendant was not guilty of the above 9,90 grams and 1,700 grams and the above 1,700 grams and 1,700 grams which were issued by the above 99,00 and then sent them to the 6 Vins and again without appearance, and then concealed the above 99 Gabs and 9 Gabs and 9 Gabs and 9 Gabs and 9 Gabs and 9 Gabs and 9 Gabs and 9 Gabs and 9 Gabs and 9 Gabs and 9 Gabs and 9 Gabs and 9 Gabs and 9 Gabs and Gabs and 9 Gabs and 9 Gabs and Gabs and Gabs and 9 Gabs and Dobs and 9 Gabs and Gabs and

이에 원심이 판시한 바를 검토해 보면, 우선 여행자휴대품 신고서의 작성제출에 관하여 그것이 법적인 의무는 아니라해도 그 신고서를 작성 제출함에 있어 이 사건 사금과 자수정 원석이 그 신고서에서 서면신고하여야 할 것으로 되어 있는 이상 고의로 이를 기재하지 아니한 것 자체로 관세포탈의 범의를 발현하는 하나의 징표로 볼 수 있다 할 것이고, 또 휴대품을 세관검사대위에 올려 놓은 것 자체를 하나의 신고로 볼 것이냐 하는 문제에 관하여서도 짧은 시간내에 많은 휴대품에 대하여 통관절차를 마쳐야 하는 통관사무의 현실성에 비추어 세관원으로 하여금 유세휴대품의 내용을 쉽게 알아볼 수 있도록 제시하는 경우에 한하여 긍정적으로 풀이할 것이며 이 사건의 경우 원심이 인정한 것처럼 사금 9,900그램과 자수정 원석 1,700그램을 6개의 비닐봉지에 나누어 담고 다시 신문용지로 포장하여 외관상 값어치없는 물건으로 가장한 후 이를 여행용 중형 서류가방속에 넣고 그 위에 입던 헌옷가지 등을 놓은 것이라면, 피고인이 그 가방을 세관검사대위에 올려 놓은 것만으로는 적법한 신고라고 볼 수 없을 것이다. 뿐만 아니라 이 사건 기록에 의하면, 피고인은 이 사건 사금의 색깔이 수은 및 열처리로 인하여 원래의 사금빛깔과는 달리 거무스름하게 되어 있어 구리와 "신쭈(놋쇠)"의 합금같이 보이므로 사금에 대한 전문적인 지식이 없는 세관공무원에게는 구리와 신쭈의 합금이라거나 분석용광석의 원석이라고 말하면 모르고 통관시켜줄 것으로 생각하고 신고하지 아니하였고 세관직원이 가방속에 무엇이 들어 있느냐, 신고할 물건이 있느냐라고 몇번이나 반복하여 질문을 하였음에도 신고할 물품이 없다고 대답하였으며 세관직원(손필선)이 위 가방을 열고 위에있는 의류를 들치면서 그 안에 있는 이 사건 사금과 자수정 원석이 들어있는 신문지로 싼 봉지와 비닐로 싼 봉지를 꺼내며 이것이 무엇이냐고 물으니까 피고인은 그것이 광석가루라고(거짓) 대답하여 세관직원(이창환)이 봉지를 뜯어보고 사금임을 확인하였음을 알 수 있는바, 이는 가방속의 이 사건 사금과 자수정 원석을 은닉하기 위하여 소극적인 자세를 넘어선 행위로 볼 것이다.

In a comprehensive consideration of the defendant's series of acts, it is nothing more than that of a conclusive expression of the criminal intent of evading customs duties, which makes it possible to evade customs duties by means of social norms, which makes it possible to evade customs duties.

Nevertheless, the court below's finding the defendant not guilty on the ground that the so-called "the defendant's act of deception or other improper act that makes it impossible or considerably difficult to impose and collect customs duties" is not sufficient, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the above legal principles in finding the defendant not guilty on the ground that there is no evidence to find that the defendant attempted to evade customs duties by "the act of deception or other improper act" as stipulated in Article 180 (1) of the Customs Act.

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

Justices Lee Woo-soo (Presiding Justice)