The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is C and Husband and wife.

Where the goods acquired from a foreign country at the time of entry exceeds US$ 400, the overseas traveler shall voluntarily report to the customs office and carry them into the country after paying the relevant tax.

From December 26, 2011 to December 29, 2011, the Defendant: (a) was traveling in Hong Kong; (b) was aware of the provisions of the provisions through the Incheon Airport on December 29, 2011; and (c) was entering the Republic of Korea in collusion with C in order to prevent a customs house; (b) was imported into the Republic of Korea without filing a customs report, the Defendant was sealed into the Republic of Korea in collusion with C, with two male and female grandchildren; (c) KRW 4,350,963; and (d) KRW 3,15,157; and (d) KRW 7,506,120 (or KRW 12,985,813; and (e) KRW 12,985,813, respectively.

2. Determination

A. Accordingly, the Defendant asserted to the effect that, although he purchased the visibility in Hong Kong, he did not have any fact that he returned the visibility from the Busan Customs to Hong Kong as a tax issue, he did not have any fact that he did not have any fact of smuggling since he returned it to the Hong Kong.

B. Evidence that there is a crime in criminal procedure must be presented by the prosecutor, and the criminal facts must be proven by the judge so that the judge can have high probability beyond reasonable doubt, and if there is no evidence to establish such a degree of conviction, the defendant is suspected of guilt even if there is no evidence to establish such a degree of conviction.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Do327, Mar. 23, 1993; 2012Do6522, Aug. 23, 2012).

However, among the evidence that correspond to the above facts charged, ① NAV Kafa (in the investigation records, 31 pages, 101 pages, 136 pages) denies the authenticity of the establishment of the defendant, and there is no other evidence to recognize that the writing was prepared by the defendant, and therefore, Article 313(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is applied.