The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is clear that the Defendants were evading customs duties, and the application for changes in indictment is scheduled to specify the actual dutiable value on the list of crimes during the appellate trial. Thus, it is not proven that the price of the freezing wn imported by the Defendants was the same as that of the column of actual taxation on the list of crimes.

In light of the above, the judgment of the court below which acquitted all of the charges of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of judgment.

2. Determination

A. The number of crimes of escape cells is determined on the basis of the number of times meeting the requirements for the establishment of the violation. Customs duties are determined on the basis of the method of filing a return, and one tax liability becomes final and conclusive whenever the person liable for payment files an import declaration of imported goods.

A crime of evading customs duties under Article 270 (1) 1 of the former Customs Act is a legal interest to secure legitimate customs duties on imported goods. Thus, in a case where imported goods are imported after filing a false declaration on their dutiable value, tariff rate, etc. at the time of filing an import declaration, the legal interest of securing legitimate customs duties on the imported goods is infringed at the time of the import declaration, and the requirements for separate composition are satisfied at each time when the import declaration is filed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do782, Nov. 10, 2000). As such, one crime is established at each time when the import declaration was filed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do782, Nov. 10, 200). The prosecutor bears the burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial, and the conviction of guilt should be based on strict evidence with probative value that makes a judge

Even if there is no choice but to determine the interest of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do767, Apr. 15, 2005). Such a legal doctrine is equally applied to the crime of evading customs duties, so it is each crime of evading customs duties established at the time of false import declaration.