(a) Confiscation or collection of additional taxes on a corporation;

(b) A clerical error in fact-finding and application of law, where law is changed after crimes;

Since the crime of non-licensed import and the crime of evasion of customs duties are different from each other, the fact-finding or legal application of the crime of evasion of customs duties cannot be made unless a preliminary prosecution is instituted for the crime of evasion of customs duties in the case prosecuted for the crime of non-licensed import.

Article 210 of the Customs Act, Article 212(1) of the Customs Act, Article 198-2 of the Customs Act

Service to the Prosecutor

Defendant corporation

Busan metropolitan area, Daegu metropolitan area, etc. of the second instance

Article 210 of the Initial Customs Act provides that if an employee, employee, or other worker of a juristic person commits an act contrary to the penal provisions prescribed in this Act concerning the business of the juristic person, the punishment shall be imposed in addition to the punishment of the offender. Thus, it is interpreted that an additional punishment should be imposed in addition to the confiscation or collection, which is an additional punishment, unless there is a special order to exclude the punishment. According to Article 212 subparagraph 1 of the Initial Customs Act, if the whole or part of goods to be confiscated pursuant to Article 197, 198, 198-2, or 200 cannot be confiscated, it shall be collected from the offender, and since Article 209 of the Initial Customs Act provides that an employee shall be punished in addition to the punishment of the offender, it shall be deemed that the proprietor, employee, or cargo manager of the juristic person shall be punished in addition to the punishment of the offender, and it shall not be deemed that it is reasonable to exclude the punishment of the State from the punishment of the offender.

According to the court below's second judgment, since the defendant corporation's non-indicted 1 and two other than the defendant's door 1, 4289, which are members of the corporation, were not charged with the same duty, the court below acknowledged that the defendant corporation's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 2's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 1,248,680's cost of 45 tons among non-indicted 885's non-indicted 1,280's article 9's non-indicted 28's article 9's non-indicted 12,392,80's article 20's article 9's non-indicted 20's article 9's article 128's article 9's non-indicted 20's article 9's non-indicted 9's article 280's article 9 of the former Customs Act's non-indicted.

Justices White-sung (Presiding Justice)