Whether the act of converting the "business operator's use" into the "customs use" and submitting it to the customs office for the import license constitutes a crime of non-licensed import under Article 181 (2) of the Customs Act.

Article 181 subparagraph 2 of the Customs Act provides that only the act of obtaining a license under Article 137 shall be punished by fraudulent or other unlawful means, and according to Article 139 (1) of the same Act and Article 123-2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act and Article 123-2 (1) of the same Act, one of the documents to be submitted at the time of filing an import declaration for obtaining an import license is stipulated as one of the documents required by the head of the relevant customs office, and it cannot be said that the documents for obtaining an import approval for the above customs are subject to approval or other conditions as stipulated by the Acts and subordinate statutes, since there is no provision for submitting an import approval for the "customs use" required by the head of the relevant customs office in the real situation of the import license, and therefore, even if the documents for obtaining an import approval for cement are submitted to the head of the relevant customs office by altering the "business use" among the items for obtaining an import approval for it, it cannot be deemed that the above act constitutes

Article 181 subparagraph 2 of the Customs Act, Article 137, Article 139 (1) of the Customs Act, Article 123-2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Attorney Lee Jae-chul et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 93No2194 delivered on October 13, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 181 subparagraph 2 of the Customs Act provides that "the act of obtaining a license under Article 137 shall not be subject to punishment for all types of acts of obtaining a license under Article 137 of the same Act by fraud or other improper means, and only the act of obtaining a license under Article 137 shall be subject to punishment. According to Article 139 (1) of the Customs Act and Article 123-2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act and Article 123-2 (1) of the same Act, one of the documents to be submitted at the time of filing an import declaration for obtaining an import license is only stipulated "the import approval letter" as one of the documents to be submitted at the time of filing an import declaration for obtaining an import license (the same provision shall also apply to the rules on the import clearance, which is a public notice of the Korea Customs Service), and therefore, submission of the above import approval letter cannot be subject to approval or other conditions as stipulated in the Act and subordinate statutes. Thus, even if the defendant submitted an import declaration for cement to the head of the customs office, it cannot be viewed that the defendant's act constitutes a violation of 1.

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)