[1] Criteria to determine the identity of the goods in a crime of violating the Customs Act by falsely reporting the exportation of goods different from the actual export goods

[2] The case holding that the court below's measure which did not recognize the identity is unlawful on the ground that there is a difference between the manufacturing company and the type or specification of the vehicle and the vehicle actually exported under the Customs and Statistics Consolidated Schedules

[1] The pertinent export goods and “other goods” under Article 269(3)2 of the Customs Act shall not mean all goods other than those declared in accordance with the export declaration, but shall be deemed to mean all goods other than the goods declared in accordance with the export declaration or all goods other than those similar thereto. Whether the identity between the goods declared in accordance with the export declaration and the goods actually exported after customs clearance shall be determined on the basis of the difference between the two 10 unit classification codes in accordance with the 10-stage classification system as publicly notified by the Secretary of the Ministry of Finance and Economy.

[2] The case holding that the court below's measure which did not recognize the identity is unlawful on the ground that there is a difference between the manufacturing company and the type or specification of the vehicle and the vehicle actually exported under the Customs and Statistics Consolidated Schedules

[1] Articles 226(1) and (2), 241(1), and 269(3)2 of the Customs Act / [2] Articles 241(1), 269(3)2, and 276(1)4 of the Customs Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 93Do37 delivered on December 24, 1993 (Gong1994Sang, 577) Supreme Court Decision 94Do710 delivered on September 5, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3453)

Defendant

Defendant

Law Firm Shinsung, Attorney Ansan-il

Busan District Court Decision 2003No1958 delivered on February 11, 2004

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

1. The summary of the charge of violation of the Customs Act is as follows: (a) around February 3, 200, the defendant reported as if he were exporting Samsung 6W-2 and Samsung 932, the export declaration number of Samsung 230-10-00-021209; and (b) otherwise exported Samsung 8W-2, the chassis A253, one of which is different from that of the vehicles reported to the customs office; and (c) around 72 times from around 31, 2001, the defendant stated that the above provision of Article 29 of the Customs Act was closely exported of the above used cars and construction machinery 1,613,648,816 won at the central customs office located in Busan, Jung-gu, Busan; and (d) the amendment of the Customs Act was different from that of the above case, and (e) the amendment of Article 29 of the former Customs Act was recognized as being different from that of the above 90-2,000 tons before and after the amendment of the above 970-2.

2. However, we cannot agree with the above judgment of the court below.

A. Article 241(1) of the Act provides that when a person intends to export goods, the name, standard, quantity, price, etc. of the relevant goods shall be reported to the head of the relevant customs office. Article 269(3)2 of the Act provides that even though a declaration was filed under Article 241(1) of the Act, a person who exports goods different from those on which such goods are reported shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than three years or by a fine not exceeding the cost of the relevant goods. Here, the term “other goods” and “other goods” shall not mean all other goods than those reported by the export declaration, but shall be deemed to mean all other goods other than the goods whose export declaration was filed or any goods

B. In Korea, the licensing system for export and import has already been abolished, in particular, and there is no customs duty imposition. Thus, the purport of Article 241(1) of the Act stipulating that the name, standard, quantity, price, etc. of the pertinent goods should be reported to the head of the relevant customs office when he/she intends to export the pertinent goods is to confirm whether the pertinent goods meet the requirements for permission, approval, indication, and other conditions prescribed in the Customs Act and other export-related Acts and subordinate statutes (Article 226(1) and (2) of the Act) and to secure appropriate statistical data related to export. The classification of the items for export statistics is in accordance with the 10-stage classification system publicly notified by the Minister of Finance and Economy, and the classification of the items for export statistics is in accordance with the 10-stage classification system publicly notified by the Minister of Finance and Economy, and Article 226(2) of the Act and Article 233 of the Enforcement Decree of the Customs Act, and the designation and public notice of the head of the relevant customs office in order to determine the export and import statistics.

C. Thus, the identity between the goods reported in accordance with the export declaration and the goods actually exported after customs clearance should be determined on the basis of whether the 10-unit classification code is the same as that of the two, but the court below recognized the identity solely on the ground that there is a difference in the manufacturing company, the vehicle type or size, etc. even in the case where the 10-unit classification code of the vehicles actually exported by the defendant from the vehicles declared export to the customs office is the same, and the vehicles actually exported to the customs office. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to "other goods than the relevant goods" under Article 269 (3) 2 of the Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and therefore, the defendant pointed out this error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to "the relevant goods" under Article 269 (3) 2 of the Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and therefore, the grounds for appeal filed by the defendant are justified (However,

3. Therefore, the Defendant’s appeal is with merit within the scope of recognition, and the corresponding part of the judgment of the court below should be reversed. The above reversed part and the remaining violation of the Customs Act are one of the crimes, and the entire violation of the Customs Act and all of the remaining parts are concurrent relations with each other, and only one of the original orders shall be sentenced. Thus, without examining the remaining grounds for appeal of the Defendant, the court below shall be reversed and remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Kim Hwang-sik (Presiding Justice)