In the event of a change in the law after the crime, a mistake in the application of the law;

Article 6 (6) of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes cannot be applied to Defendant’s attempted evasion of customs duties at the time of the first trial, and since the above Act was amended by Act No. 2032 prior to the judgment of the court below, it was two times until the judgment of the court below after the crime of this case, and among which the punishment of Article 182 (2) and Article 180 (1) of the Customs Act at the time of the first trial of the court of first instance is the first instance, it is clear by Article 50 of this Act.

Article 1(2) of the Criminal Act; Article 182(1) of the Customs Act; Article 180(1) of the Customs Act

Defendant

Attorney Jeong-chul et al.

Daegu High Court Decision 68No167 delivered on July 29, 1968

The original judgment and the first instance judgment shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

One hundred and fifty-five days out of the detention days before a judgment in the first instance is rendered shall be included in the original sentence.

Of course, 780 clishing 780 clishing 780 clishing 780 clishing 480 clishing 48 clishing 2,38 clishing 3), vessel clishing 1 clishing clishing clishing 1 clishing clishing clishing clishing

We examine whether the court below's appeal that the name of defense counsel applied Article 6 subparagraph 6 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes to the violation of the Customs Act was illegal.

Article 1(2) and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Act No. 1976) provides that the punishment under the amended Customs Act (Act No. 1688) shall be imposed pursuant to Article 1(1) of the former Act, because there is a change in the law after the crime was committed against the defendant's attempted customs duties, the court below maintained the first instance judgment which determined that the defendant's judgment shall be imposed pursuant to Article 6(6) of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 198(1) and Article 198-3(2) of the former Customs Act, and Article 6(6) of the former Act provides that the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than 10 years until the time of the revision of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Article 197 through 198-3 or 190 of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes).

This case is deemed to be sufficient to render judgment based on the records of trial and the evidence examined by the court of first instance and the court of first instance. Therefore, the judgment against the accused case is delivered as follows:

The summary of facts and evidence recognized by this Court is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance. Therefore, it is accepted by Articles 399 and 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Article 1(2) and Article 50 of the Criminal Act provides that if the severity of a sentence is compared with that of a defendant, an attempted crime including customs duties shall be limited to Article 1(1) and Article 198(2), Article 198(1), and Article 6(6) of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes shall apply to Article 182(1) and Article 180(1), and Article 180(1) of the former Customs Act (amended by Act No. 1976 of the Act at the time of the trial of the first instance and Article 182(1), and Article 180(1) of the former Customs Act shall be limited to imprisonment with prison labor for not more than 15 years (Article 6(7) and Article 180(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes as amended by Act No. 2032 of Jul. 15, 1968).

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Na-dong (Presiding Judge)