beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
Reasons
1. The court below found the defendant not guilty (not guilty in the grounds) as to the violation of the Customs Act by smuggling export, which is the primary charge, and found the defendant guilty as to the violation of the Customs Act due to false declaration from February 24, 2011 to July 16, 2013, which is the preparatory charge, and the defendant filed an appeal only for the guilty part of the judgment below. Although the acquittal part in the grounds is reversed and within the scope of the trial of the party, the part of the judgment below was exempted from the object of attack and defense between the parties, and it does not seem to have any other matters to be deliberated and determined ex officio. Thus, the judgment below's conclusion as to the acquittal part in the grounds is followed and it is not determined again.
2. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that of the lower court’s punishment of 12 million won (a fine) is too unreasonable.
3. Judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio shall be examined ex officio.
According to Article 278 of the Customs Act, a person who commits an act in violation of penal provisions under the Customs Act shall be exempted from the application of Article 38(1)2 of the Criminal Act Article 38(1) of the same Act with respect to the restriction on aggravation of fines. Thus, with respect to several concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, a fine shall be separately imposed for each
(2) The court below rendered a single fine, without separately specifying the amount of fine separately determined for each of the crimes while applying the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and Article 278 of the Customs Act (Article 38(1)2 of the Criminal Act) among the violations of each Customs Act in relation to concurrent crimes (Article 38(1)2 of the Criminal Act). However, the court below rendered a single fine without specifying the amount of fine separately determined for each of the crimes. The above measures by the court below are erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles of Article 278 of the Customs Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed.