[1] The number of crimes committed in relation to the free import under the Customs Act

[2] Whether a crime of smuggling is established under the Customs Act in a case where goods are actually imported in a remarkably large quantity compared to the import declaration quantity in the import of goods (affirmative)

[3] In the case of a part of the facts charged, the case reversing the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the violation of the Customs Act due to non-reported import on the ground that the difference between the import declaration quantity and the actual import quantity can be recognized as identical

[1] Article 269 (2) 1 of the Customs Act / [2] Article 269 (2) 1 of the Customs Act / [3] Article 269 (2) 1 of the Customs Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 200Do1338 Decided May 26, 200 (Gong2000Ha, 1581) Supreme Court Decision 99Do1046 Decided May 15, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 1430) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 99Do4864 Decided February 8, 200 (Gong2000Sang, 649) Supreme Court Decision 2001Do451 Decided May 10, 202

Defendant

Defendant

Attorneys Yellow Woo-man et al.

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2005No110 Decided August 19, 2005

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court Panel Division.

1. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the summary of the violation of the Customs Act is as follows: “When the Defendant imported 1,90 punishment from China on January 31, 2002 from the Incheon Customs office for male use, and omitted 60 punishment among them from the declaration, he did not report to the customs office about 60 U.S. dollars for male use, and then imported 76 times from around that time to December 15, 2003 in the same manner, and then imported 27,509 US$167,968 US dollars in the same manner.” Accordingly, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the remainder of the import declaration as to the goods on the grounds that the import declaration could not affect the quantity or quantity of the goods, even if it stated in the import declaration on the import declaration on the same size as the actual import quantity of the clothing corresponding to the same subparagraph, although the Defendant stated the import declaration on the import declaration on the import declaration on the basis that it did not affect the quantity or quantity of the goods.

2. However, the judgment of the court below which held that even though the quantity of the clothing actually imported and the quantity of the clothing for which the import declaration was filed are insignificant, it constitutes a violation of the Customs Act due to an import without filing an import declaration for the following reasons, even though it is minor that the quantity of the clothing for which the import declaration was filed is excessive in several or

In the crime of smuggling import under Article 269 (2) 1 of the Customs Act due to import without declaration, even if the act of non-import without declaration is identical in the form, method, item, etc. of the act, in principle, it constitutes a violation of the Customs Act resulting from import without declaration separately (Supreme Court Decision 9Do1046 delivered on May 15, 2001). In addition, in case where the import of goods is reported to be only a part of the actual import quantity, and the remaining quantity is falsely prepared in accordance with the reported quantity with various documents with the intention of not filing an import declaration, and the goods imported without an import declaration can not be recognized as identical with the goods for which an import declaration was filed, and thus, the crime of smuggling import under Article 269 (2) 1 of the Customs Act is established (Supreme Court Decision 9Do1046 delivered on May 15, 201).

However, according to the above legal principles and the records, the defendant's report on the import declaration of clothing at the time of the import declaration reaches 76 times in total, such as the list of crimes in attached Table 2 (hereinafter "crime list") of the judgment below. Among them, there are cases where the actual import declaration quantity exceeds the import declaration quantity, such as paragraphs 1, 9, 24, 27, 29, 44, and 48 of attached Table 2 of the crime sight list, and even among these cases, there are cases where the actual import quantity exceeds the import declaration quantity, and even one is only more than the actual import quantity than the import declaration quantity as shown in paragraph 27 of the daily sight list. Thus, if it seems that the difference between the actual import quantity and the import declaration does not exist, it cannot be deemed that the difference between the actual import quantity exceeding the import declaration and the clothes of the actual import. Thus, there is no room to deem that the crime of smuggling under Article 269 (2) 1 of the Customs Act is established.

Therefore, the court below should have determined whether each actual import quantity is significantly larger than the actual import quantity of each actual import declaration with respect to each act of importing goods in excess of the import declaration quantity. However, the court below maintained the judgment of the court of first instance which found the defendant guilty of all the facts charged with violating the Customs Act by failing to reach the judgment and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Therefore, among the judgment below's violation of the Customs Act, the part which found the defendant guilty of each act that could not harm its identity because the difference between the import declaration quantity and the actual import quantity is not obvious. The defendant's appeal as to the remaining part of the violation of the Customs Act by non-declaration import is without merit. Meanwhile, the defendant did not assert the grounds of appeal as to the violation of the Customs Act by non-declaration of duty and the violation of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act among the judgment below. However, the court below found the defendant guilty of all the charges of this case, including the part without reason and the part without argument in the grounds of appeal, and sentenced the defendant to one punishment by deeming the defendant as concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below

4. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Ji-hyung (Presiding Justice)