Do 2008 11026 A. Violation of the Customs Act

B. Violation of the Trademark Act

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Shin Jae-sik, a legal entity

Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2008No 1032 Decided November 12, 2008

November 25, 2010

The appeal shall be dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are determined.

Article 282 (2) and Article 282 (3) of the former Customs Act (amended by Act No. 9261 of Dec. 26, 2008; hereinafter the same) are unconstitutional, which violates the principle of prohibition of excessive prohibition, etc., which is the limit of the legislation for infringement of property rights, but the court below's decision is erroneous in imposing additional collection on the defendant in accordance with the above provision of the Act.

The purpose of the Customs Act is to contribute to the development of the national economy and secure the import of customs duties by ensuring the proper imposition and collection of customs duties and customs clearance of goods. It is punishable as a crime of importing customs duties without filing an import declaration, and it is an appropriate means to achieve the legislative purpose of the Customs Act. The declaration of export and import under the Customs Act is a system prepared to secure the collection of customs duties and to establish the customs order. It is not possible to grasp the domestic or foreign shipment of the goods in question and to carry out customs procedures, and thus, it is also impossible to ensure the progress of the customs clearance procedures, and thus, to ensure that the import declaration violates the principle of proportionality 2, including the importance of such export and import declaration, the legislative purpose of the Customs Act, the nature of the punitive provision on forfeiture and collection, and the value of the goods in question, and to ensure the necessary forfeiture and collection of customs duties, and to ensure that it violates the principle of proportionality 3, referring to the principle of proportionality 2, 200 in the Constitution.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Justice)

Justices Park Jae-young

Justices Kim Ji-hyung

Justices Jeon Soo-ahn

Justices Yang Chang-soo