(a) Punishment of a competitor who does not directly participate in an act of execution;

B. Whether Article 38(1)2 of the Criminal Act is applicable in the case of sentencing a fine for a violation of the Customs Act

(c) The act of evading false statements in credit, etc. or fraudulent or other unlawful acts;

(d) Full amount and additional collection for each offender in violation of the Customs Act;

A. Even if a criminal act was recruited and did not directly participate in such criminal act, it cannot be exempt from the liability of co-principal liability regarding the other co-principal’s act.

B. In a case where a fine is imposed on a person who violates the penal provisions stipulated in the Customs Act, the application of Article 38(1)2 of the Criminal Act is excluded (Article 194 of the Customs Act). As such, a fine shall be imposed on each of several crimes for which judgment has not become final and conclusive.

C. The term “private or other unlawful act” as referred to in Article 180 of the Customs Act refers to a deceptive scheme or other active act that makes it impossible or considerably difficult to determine the imposition of a customs duty. Therefore, it constitutes a case where a decision to impose a customs duty is remarkably difficult by falsely entering a letter of credit, invoice, etc. in order to evade the customs duty, etc. and preparing taxation data.

(d) Since the additional collection under the Customs Act is one disciplinary measure against a violation of the Customs Act, if there are several offenders, the additional collection shall be ordered against each offender in whole.

A. Article 30(b) of the Criminal Act; Article 194 of the Customs Act; Article 38 of the Criminal Act; Article 180(d) of the Customs Act; Article 198

(a)

Supreme Court Decision 4288Do145 delivered on June 24, 195, and 67Do1027 delivered on September 19, 1967/b. Supreme Court Decision 71Do1394 delivered on September 28, 1971

Defendant 1 and five others

Defendants and Prosecutor ( Defendants 2 and 3)

Attorney Jeong Jae-sik, Kim Tae-won, Kim Jong-chul, Madmon

Seoul High Court Decision 83No1093 delivered on July 15, 1983

All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. The defendants and their defense counsel's grounds of appeal are examined together.

(1) According to the evidence of the first instance court maintained by the court below, the facts constituting the crime against the defendants are duly recognized, and there is no error of incomplete deliberation or misconception of facts due to the violation of the rules of evidence.

(2) In a case where more than one person conspireds to commit a certain crime and some of the persons who do not directly participate in the act of the crime committed, other persons who do not participate in the act of the crime shall be liable for the crime of co-principal as the person who committed the crime. Therefore, it is just to treat Defendant 2 as being in a co-principal relationship with Defendant 1, 4, 5, and 3 in the same purport, and Defendant 2 was not a foreigner who is not the person liable for the duty of the goods of this case and the person liable for the duty of the goods of this case, and there is no complaint for the same conclusion.

(3) In a case where a fine is imposed on a person who violates the penal provisions stipulated in the Customs Act, the application of Article 38(1)2 of the Criminal Act is excluded (Article 194 of the Customs Act). Therefore, the court below's determination of fines for each so-called, which has not been finally affirmed, is just and the purport of the original decision is to be deemed to have been sentenced to a fine equivalent to the sum of the fines as stated in the judgment against Defendant 4, and therefore, there is no argument that the judgment of the court below erred in the judgment of the court below on the contrary.

(4) For the purpose of Article 180 of the Customs Act, the term “private or other unlawful act” refers to a deceptive scheme or other active act that makes it impossible or considerably difficult to determine the imposition of customs duties. Thus, according to the facts established by the court below, the defendants prepared a letter of credit and invoice with a false transaction price and reported import price at a price below the actual transaction price in the import of automobile parts, and the difference between the actual import price and the import price after the import. Thus, the defendants evaded customs duties, etc. on the difference between the actual import price and the import price by settling accounts in the country after the import. Thus, the defendants clearly difficult to determine the imposition of customs duties by falsely entering the credit invoice for the purpose of evading customs duties, etc., and therefore there is no argument that the defendants’ act does not constitute an evasion provided for in

(5) Since the additional collection under the Customs Act is one disciplinary measure against a violation of the Customs Act, if there are many offenders, the court shall order each offender to collect the whole amount of the additional collection. Thus, it is justifiable for the court below to order the Defendants to collect the additional collection. Even after examining the record, it cannot be said that the court below violated the rules of evidence or erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the calculation of the additional collection amount.

(6) The argument that sentencing is too excessive is not a legitimate ground for appeal in this case.

2. Each ground of appeal against the prosecutor's defendant 2 and 3 is examined together.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, among the facts charged against the defendants 2 and 3, the court below decided that the above defendants were guilty of evading customs duties of KRW 647,522 and defense tax of KRW 54,040 by making a false declaration of actual import price while importing 10,00,00 from March 22, 1982 through the Busan Customs Office, and making a false declaration of actual import price through customs clearance, and sentenced the above defendants not guilty as stated in the judgment of the court below. Thus, in light of the records of the evidence cooking which was conducted by the court below in taking such measures, it is just to examine the above defendants in light of the records, and there is no error of law of misunderstanding of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence such as the theory of lawsuit, and there

3. Therefore, all appeals by Defendant etc. and prosecutor are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeong Tae-tae (Presiding Justice)