A. The meaning of "abstinance or other unlawful means" under Article 180 of the Customs Act

(b) A person who intentionally omits the declaration of personal effects of the traveler and the declaration of release on bail and a criminal intent of evading customs duties;

(c) Where personal effects carried by travelers can be deemed as personal effects declared by the customs inspection unit itself; and

D. Whether an act of evading customs duties is deemed to have been committed in a deceitful or other unlawful manner stipulated in Article 180 of the Customs Act in a case where a person attempts to leave the door, which was put in together with daily miscellaneouss, to make it difficult to find it easily by omitting the release of 10 species of female 10 items from the time of filing a declaration on personal effects of the traveler and then put them into the door in the sealing box for customs clearance (affirmative)

A. Article 180 of the Customs Act provides that the term "private and illegal means" refers to all acts which enable tax evasion and which are found to be fraudulent and illegal by social norms, and includes both active and passive acts (influence) as well as active(influence).

(b) If the submission and submission of a traveler's personal effects declaration is not a legal obligation but a release on bail, such as being raised up in the sea, is required to be filed in the declaration in writing, it can be deemed that the declaration itself intentionally omitted the declaration's criminal intent.

C. The issue of whether personal effects are placed above the customs inspection unit is a single declaration only when it is presented to the customs officer so that the customs officer can easily recognize the contents of the taxable personal effects in light of the current situation of the customs affairs to be completed with respect to a large number of personal effects within a short period of time.

D. If a person attempts to intentionally omit 10 kinds of bails which are put up and 10 kinds of bails when preparing a consumer's personal effects, put them into a sealed paper so that they cannot be easily discovered, and then put them into a miscellaneous with other goods such as clothes and clothes, which are general personal effects, into a customs inspection unit without a customs burden, the mere fact that the above bank is put on the customs inspection unit cannot be deemed a legitimate declaration, and the series of acts do not constitute an act that indicates a criminal intent of evading customs duties and thereby, constitutes an act that is recognized as fraudulent and unjust by social norms that enable tax evasion.

(c)Paragraph 1 of Article 180, Article 137, paragraph 1 (c) of the Customs Act;

Supreme Court Decision 87Do1571 delivered on November 24, 1987 (Gong1988,199) 90Do422 delivered on May 8, 1990 (Gong1990,1298) 90Do683 Delivered on September 28, 1990 (Gong190,2246)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul High Court Decision 90No1088 delivered on July 20, 1990

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.

On November 23, 1989.17:00, the court below found that the defendant was not guilty of the above facts of the facts charged in this case, i.e., to have purchased 4.91kids and 10 kinds of bail on a building, and then placed them in vinyl 24,79,97 won in the market price, and then concealed them again in plastic tape as if they were carried with minccco personal effects, and concealed them in a mincco and other items, and did not have any duty to promptly carry them in the 25th day of the following month to the effect that he was not found to have been aware of the above facts by introducing the defendant-friendly non-indicted 1 before the Hong Kong Airport Round, and that it was difficult to request the non-indicted 2 to carry them out to the Republic of Korea on the 19th day of the above declaration without any justifiable reason, and to have the non-indicted 2 enter the above 18th day on which he was not aware of it.

Article 180 of the Customs Act provides that "the act of deception or other improper means" means any act that enables tax evasion and which is found to be fraudulent and illegal by social norms, and includes not only active (defluence) but also passive (influence) acts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Do1571, Nov. 24, 1987; Supreme Court Decision 90Do422, May 8, 199; 90Do683, Sept. 28, 199).

Therefore, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, first of all, as long as release on bail, such as catd in this case, is not a legal obligation but a written declaration on the declaration, it can be seen as a single symbol indicating the criminal intent of evading customs duties. Further, as to the issue of whether the personal effects are placed above the customs inspection unit as one declaration, it can be seen that the customs officer can easily recognize the contents of milk personal effects in light of the actual situation of customs affairs, which complete customs procedures for large number of personal effects within a short time. In this case, as recognized by the court below, the release of 10 kinds of release on bail, including 10 kinds of catdy, into a small plastic paper, and then put them into a large plastic paper, and then put them into the scar tape into a new container, and then put them into a new container, and then put them into a new container into a new container, and according to the records, it cannot be seen that the defendant can be seen that it is a legitimate one of the above goods, such as clothes.

In a comprehensive examination of the above series of acts by the defendant, it is nothing more than that of expressing the criminal intent of evading customs duties and thereby of committing deceptive or unlawful acts which are generally accepted by social norms that enable tax evasion. Nevertheless, it is insufficient to view the above so-called "the court below is merely a deceptive or other unlawful act which makes the defendant impossible or considerably difficult to impose and collect customs duties," and otherwise, it is erroneous in the misapprehension of the above legal principles to find the defendant not guilty on the grounds that there is no sufficient evidence to acknowledge that the defendant attempted to evade customs duties on the instant category of release on bail by "a deceitful or other unlawful means" under Article 180 (1) of the Customs Act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)