(a) Timing for the crime of evading customs duties;

(b) Whether the public prosecution instituted against any customs offender is valid without any accusation of the customs collector; and

(a)an intention to be subject to the application of customs exemption by deceit or other unlawful means, upon filing an import declaration with the authorities the most recently and subject to the application of customs exemption for the raw materials, etc. brought into the import license, and promptly take them out of the bonded area, the elements of a crime of evasion of

B. As long as the first discretionary power is given to decide whether to take a disposition of notice or an accusation with respect to a customs offender in violation of the Customs Act, a prosecutor’s filing of a prosecution without accusation by the customs collector is invalid in violation of Article 327 subparag. 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act or the provisions of law.

Article 198 of the Customs Act, Article 327 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 75Do363 delivered on November 23, 1976 (Article 6(3)1405 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 254(40)1432 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 180(23)1930 of the Customs Act, court bulletin 550No950 delivered on March 31, 1969 (Supreme Court Decision 274 delivered on November 274, Supreme Court Decision 17Nu102 delivered on July 16, 1959, Article 327(9)1452 of the Criminal Procedure Act(Supreme Court Decision 6296 delivered on January 16, 1959, Article 200(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes)

Defendant 1 and two others

Defendant and Prosecutor

Daegu District Court (Law No. 68Da1186, 10841, 2747, 6033) of the first instance court

We reverse the original judgment.

Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, etc. shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for three years.

In the detention days before the original sentence, 160 days shall be included in the calculation of defendant 1, and 135 days shall be included in the calculation of the original sentence.

However, with respect to Defendant 1, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for five years from the date of the final judgment.

The seized Nagwons (210 Doz. 14 kilograms per box) (No. 15) shall be confiscated from the accused, etc., and KRW 100,610,261 shall be collected from the accused, respectively.

The public prosecution against Defendant 3 Company (hereinafter referred to as Defendant 3 Company) is dismissed.

피고인 2의 변호인의 항소이유의 요지는 피고인이 관세를 포탈하였다는 나이론 원사는 수출입 금지품이 아니고 그 품목수량을 속이지 않고 담보를 제공하여 정당히 통관절차를 밟아 면세 수입하여서 사후에 수출이 되고 안되는 것은 감독권이 상공부에 있는 것이어서 만일 수출이 되지 않을 때에는 면세조치를 취소하고 위 담보금에서 관세를 징수하면 되는 것인데 세관에서 수출이행 기간도 도과되지 않았는데 떠들어 수출을 이행할 수 없는 결과를 초래하였으며 수출조건을 이행하지 않고 국내에서 유출처분 하였더라도 관세법에 장물죄등 조문을 신설한 취지로 봐 관세포탈죄는 인정할 수 없는데 원심은 증거에 의하지 않고 사실을 잘못 인정하고 법리를 오해한 허물이 있으며 범죄가 성립된다고 하더라도 피고인은 청년기업가로서 경험부족으로 부하직원에게 일을 맡겼던 결과 사고가 발생한 것이나 관세의 담보가 되어있어 관세는 전액 징수 되었다고 할 수 있고 개준의 정이 있는 점등을 참착할 때 원심의 양형은 과중하여 부당하다는데 있고, 검사의 피고인 1 및 피고인 2등에 대한 항소이유의 요지는 피고인등이 주체가 되어 있는 피고인 3 회사 및 그 산하 각 회사등은 피고인 2가 군복무를 마친직후 아무런 경제력 없을때 피고인 1이 돈 4,000,000원을 투자하여 설립하고 피고인 2를 대표이사로 취임시켰으며 이 사건 원자재를 수입하고 처분하던 1966, 1967.경에 피고인 1은 대구시에서 돈 63,000,000원, 돈 2,090,000원을 서울에 있는 피고인 2의 당좌 구좌로 송금하였고 액면금 도합 40,000,000원 수표 2매를 원자재 수입시 담보금조로 교부하였으며 액면금 5,000,000원 수표 1매를 피고인 3 회사의 수표 마감키 위하여 피고인 2에게 교부하므로서 피고인 1은 피고인 2에게 자금지원을 하였으며 원심증인등의 증언에 의하면 1967.9.경 피고인등 경영의 피고인 3 회사에서 피고인 1 단독 경영의 영화사 공장에 이 사건 원자재인 나이론사를 수차 운반한 일이 있고 이를 뒷받침하는 증거로 위 영화사 공장에서 나이론사 보빔이 압수된 것으로 보아 이 사건 원자재가 피고인 1 경영 공장으로 유출된 것이 명백하며 피고인등 경영의 피고인 3 회사의 대표이사는 수차 피고인등이 서로 교대로 대표이사에 취임하였으며 피고인 1은 수사기관에 이 사건 범행이 발각당하자 3개월간 도피하였다가 자수한 일이 있고, 관할 세무서에 제출하는 이 사건 원자재에 대한 수출물품면세 관계서류명의가 피고인 1명의로 되어 있는 점등을 종합하여 볼 때 피고인등은 서로 공모하여 피고인 1은 아들인 피고인 2를 앞세워 주밀한 계획아래 이 사건 범행을 한 것이 인정되는데 원심은 증거의 가치판단을 잘못하여 사실을 그릇인정하고 피고인 1에게 무죄를 선고한 잘못이 있고 또 원심은 피고인 2는 아버지인 피고인 1을 무시하여 충고도 듣지 않고 대표이사라고 독단적인 처사로 부자지간에 금이 갔다고 인정하였는데 그렇다면 피고인 1이 피고인 2에게 막대한 금액과 수표를 교부하여 지원한데 대한 이유와 그 금액의 출처를 추궁하지도 않고 피고인 1명의로 관할세무서에 제출된 수출물품 면세관계서류를 제출한데 대한 심리를 하지 않아 심리를 다하지 않는 잘못이 있고, 피고인 2는 계획적으로 범죄망을 조직하여 수출업체명을 빌려 수액대의 원자재를 면세도입한 뒤 시중에 매각하여 막대한 금액의 관세를 포탈 국가경제 질서를 문란케 한 점을 참착할 때 동 피고인에 대한 양형은 너무 경하여 부당하다는데 있으므로 먼저 검사의 피고인 1에 대한 심리미진 및 증거채택 잘못으로 사실을 오인하였다는 주장부분에 관하여 살피건대, 뒤에 당원이 인정하는 범죄사실을 인정하는데 설시하는 여러증거등을 모두어 보면 피고인 1은 피고인 2의 아버지로서 피고인 2가 소장시절 돈 4,000,000원을 교부하여 피고인 영화주식회사를 설립케 한 다음 계속 지원하여 그 산하공장을 설립케 하고 서로 교대하여 대표이사가 된 점, 피고인 2가 이 사건 원자재를 면세도입하는데 자금이 딸려 허덕이자 피고인 1은 많은 금원을 송금하여 주고 또 거액의 수표를 발행 교부하였는데 그 가운데는 이 사건 원자재 면세수입하는데 조흥은행의 지급보증을 받아야 하고 그러자면 부동산을 담보로 제공하여야 하는데 공소외 1 소유의 부동산(덕흥 빌딩)을 담보로 빌리는데 피고인 1이 직접 액면금 40,000,000원 수표를 공소외 1에게 발행 교부한 점(검사의 피고인 1에 대한 피의자 신문조서 및 공소외 1에 대한 진술조서), 피고인 1의 단독 경영 영화사 공장을 이 사건 원자재 면세수입시 가공

In full view of the fact that Nonindicted Party 1’s testimony and record were obtained from the authorities to bring a lawsuit at the factory (the application form for certification of import of raw materials bound by Nonindicted Party 2’s testimony and records), and that processed processed goods or raw materials were sold in the factory, and that these affairs were seized with evidence ( multiple records of the statement of Nonindicted Party 5 regarding the preparation of duty handling of Nonindicted Party 3 and Nonindicted Party 4’s witness testimony) by Defendant 2 conspired with Nonindicted Party 1’s customs office to receive an application for permission of import of the instant raw materials from Nonindicted Party 1’s customs office (the court below’s order to accept an application for permission of import of the instant raw materials from Nonindicted Party 1’s customs office’s customs office’s customs officer’s customs officer’s customs officer’s customs officer’s customs officer’s customs officer’s customs officer’s customs officer’s customs officer’s customs officer’s customs officer’s customs officer’s customs officer’s customs officer’s customs officer’s customs officer’s customs officer’s customs officer’s customs officer’s customs officer’s customs officer’s customs officer’s customs officer’s customs officer’s customs officer’s customs officer’s delivery of the instant evidence and evidence’s customs officer’s customs officer’s non-related.

Then, according to the reasoning for appeal by the prosecutor against the defendant 2 and the above defendant, if the defendant obtained a permit for import of the raw materials of this case from the non-indicted 2 before the arrival of the bonded warehouse, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles regarding the import of the raw materials of this case by 3 years since it was found that the non-indicted 2 acquired a permit for import of the raw materials of this case and sold them to the non-indicted 2 before the arrival of the bonded warehouse, and without such a permit, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles regarding the above import of the raw materials of this case by 4 years since it was found that the non-indicted 2 acquired a permit for import of the raw materials of this case by using the non-indicted 2's delivery of the raw materials of this case to the non-indicted 2's delivery of the raw materials of this case to the non-indicted 3 warehouse and its delivery of the raw materials to the non-indicted 3 warehouse, and thus, it was found that the above non-indicted 4 company's delivery of the raw materials of this case as evidence.

The gist of the principal facts charged against the defendant, etc. is that the defendant 3 and the representative director of the non-indicted 13, etc. of the same defendant, etc., conspired to trade the raw materials imported from tax exemption in the name of the company, etc. to evade customs duties and special customs duties by crossing them to the market and export them from March 1967 to November 1, 1967, and they do not intend to export them. The export credit is opened in the same manner as Naland 528,493.54 Liber, 400 kilograms, 117,228,53 won at the market price for 400 kilograms, 165,6631 won, 35, 169, 356 won, and 356 won, which were either evaded customs duties or special customs duties by fraud or other improper means, and it is not legitimate for the defendant to immediately prosecute the above non-indicted 3 to be found that the above non-indicted 3's crime was not established.

Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 were exported from March 1966 to December 24, 1965 to obtain permission for the processing and export of direct materials, etc. in the name of each company from around 1966 to each of the authorities in order to obtain permission for the processing and export of direct materials, etc. from around 1966 to each of the company's name. Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 established the Daegu-gu branch office of the company and processed them directly with raw materials imported by Defendant 3 and Nonindicted 13. Under the supervision of Defendant 2, the Daegu-gu branch office of the company was established and imported by the company.

1. The Defendant, etc., with the permission of Nonindicted 9 of the head of the above Daegu Branch Office and the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy, conspired to import raw materials from duty exemption and export duty exemption, and, without the intention to export them to a foreign country as raw materials for export from March 1, 1967 to November 1 of the same year, filed an import declaration with the authorities, and filed an import declaration with the authorities, and filed an import declaration with the authorities, and filed an import declaration with the authorities for the export letter of credit from Japan, and filed an export letter of credit from Japan with the authorities in the name of the Defendant 3, 445, 493.54 Liber, 493.54, 8,400 kilograms, 00 kilograms, 10,763,425 won at 10,400 kilograms, 64,282,302, 381, 298, 208.

2. Defendant 1

(A) Defendant 3’s Daegu-si Branch issued a pre-date check of KRW 272846 on April 22, 1968 on the date of issuance at the Daegu-si Branch, Daegu-si, Daegu-si, 1967, and did not receive the pre-date check of KRW 40,000 on April 22, 1968 as the date of issuance, and the pre-date check of KRW 272814 on April 22, 1968, and the same date and KRW 272814 on the check amount of KRW 13,000,000 on the check amount of KRW 40,

(B) Around December 28, 1968, by issuing a date check of KRW 2,090,000 in the face value of the check No. 486174 as of March 28, 1968 as of the date of issuance at the date of issuance at the date of December 28, 1968 and making it not paid as the shortage of deposits on the same day as of the date of the date of presentment.

The facts of the judgment, as the case may be, shall be

1. Each part of the statement consistent with the facts of the judgment in the party members of Defendant 1 and Nonindicted Party 2, etc.

1. In the trial records of the court below, the defendant 1 and the defendant 2 and the defendant non-indicted 9, the witness non-indicted 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, etc. of the court below

1. Part of the statement in compliance with the judgment of the court below among the witness non-indicted 32's protocol of examination of witness as stated by the court below

1. Each part of the protocol of inspection as explained by the court below, which is consistent with the facts of the judgment

1. Each of the entries in the judgment of the court below, which were bound to the records, in accordance with the facts of the judgment, among the statement of the raw materials exempted from taxation by the defendant 3 and the statement of non-indicted 24's non-performance of export raw materials

1. Each part of the records consistent with the facts stated in the judgment in the import pages (investigation Records) book bound in the records, import declaration (Investigation Records and original records), application form for recognition of raw materials import, customs clearance certificate, balance certificate, application form for exemption from customs duties and goods, application form for approval, approval form for release approval, application form for approval of removal, submission of export certificate of duty exemption on goods for export, notice of approval for shipment, certificate of approval, investigation report on goods brought in, report on goods brought in, export declaration, application form for extension of time limit for submission of export certificate (for above, the original records

1. Part of each statement made by the prosecutor concerning the defendant 1 and 2 and the defendant non-indicted 3, 5, 6, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 34, 35, 38, 39, 1, 1, 40, and 41 of each protocol of statement concerning non-indicted 3, 5, 6, 14, 16, 17, 18, 21, 24, 35,

1. Each protocol of examination of the suspect against the defendant 1 and the non-indicted 9, etc. of the court below as to the duty of judicial police officers, and each protocol of examination of the suspect against the defendant non-indicted 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 17, 18, 19, 22, 28, 29, 39, 42, 43, 44, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, and 59, which correspond to the facts stated in the judgment;

1. An entry consistent with the holding among raw materials, equipment details, etc. not performed by the head of the Daegu head of the branch office in Busan Customs office;

1. Any description consistent with the holding in each accusation made with respect to the making of the Daegu Western Bank head; and

1. Among the protocol of seizure prepared in the course of performing the duties of judicial police officers, descriptions of seizure of 689 and 14 boxes of Nabridge (Evidence 14, 15, 28, and 30);

1. Each description in accordance with the facts stated in the judgment, among 17 pages (No. 19 through No. 23, No. 25 through No. 27) of operation logs seized;

1. The facts in the judgment are sufficient, since each part of the transcript of the register of Defendant 3 and Nonindicted 13, which was bound to the records, can be recognized by comprehensively taking into account all the descriptions consistent with the facts in the judgment.

Since the above provisions of the Customs Act are amended to the extent that there is a change in the number of articles held by the defendant, etc. in violation of the law, it constitutes 198(2) and (1), 1 and 6 of the Provisional Customs Act, and 30 of the Criminal Act before the time of the act. According to the above provisions of the Customs Act, it constitutes 180(2) and (1), 1 and 6 of the Provisional Customs Act, 1, 6 of the Provisional Customs Act, 30 of the Criminal Act, and 30 of the Criminal Act, it is recognized that the above provisions of the Customs Act shall be applied to the above 6th anniversary of the above provisions of the Customs Act, and since the above provisions of the Customs Act shall be applied to the defendant 1 and the above 6th anniversary of the above provisions of the Customs Act, the above provisions of the Customs Act shall be applied to the defendant 1 and the above provisions of the Customs Act shall be applied to the 6th anniversary of the above provisions of the Customs Act, and the above provisions of the Customs Act shall be applied to the above 1st sentence.

Of the facts charged in this case, Na Na 83,00 that Non-Indicted 13 exported from the non-Indicted 13 had taken over the non-Indicted 12's import of duty exemption, and there is no evidence to prove the guilty of this part of the charges since there is no evidence to prove that the non-Indicted 12 was subject to duty exemption by unlawful means at the time of import. However, the prosecutor did not separately prosecute the non-indicted 1 because it was the comprehensive one crime of recognizing the above party members.

Next, the following facts are examined as to the filing of an appeal by Defendant 3. The defendant company did not submit a petition of appeal within the prescribed period due to lawful procedures and did not submit the grounds for appeal. However, the case pertaining to the Customs Act, which was in force at the time of the crime of this case, provides that a prosecutor cannot institute an appeal unless the head of the customs office files an accusation. Thus, even if the court determines whether there is a complaint against the defendant 3 company or not, it cannot be found that there is a complaint against the defendant company by the head of the customs office. However, in light of the contents of the written accusation filed by the head of the Busan Customs Office, which is linked to the investigation record No. 691 (name omitted), the name of the defendant company is included in the accusation and the health company is identical to that of the defendant company, and (name omitted) the location of the company is no more than 419 (name Dong-gu, Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, and the name of the defendant company is no more than 80 (the name of the defendant company) and it can be deemed that there is no difference between the defendant company and the defendant company.

Therefore, as long as the first discretionary power is granted to decide whether to notify the head of a customs office or to take measures for accusation, it was found that the procedure for instituting a public prosecution without accusation by the head of a customs office in violation of the above provision constitutes a case where the procedure for instituting a public prosecution is null and void in violation of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act, and thus, the court below erred in the judgment of dismissing a public prosecution in line with the provisions of the Act. The court below held that there was an error in the substantive judgment, and that the defect in the conditions of litigation belongs to the matter to be ex officio investigation, and thus, it is decided again by the members of the company,

The summary of the facts charged against the defendant company is that the former representative director is the export company and the former representative director is exempted from the charge of its business, from the date of March 1967 to the end of November of the same year, under the condition that she shall process she had she export shes shes shes shes shes 45,493.45 shes shes shes shes shes shes shes shes 8,400 kilograms shes shes shes shes shes shes shes shes shes shes shes shes shes shes shes shes shes shes shes shes shes shes shes shes shes shes shes shes shes shes shes shes shes shes shes shes shes shes shes shes shes shes shes shes.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

[Attachment List omitted]

Judge Lee Jung-gu (Presiding Judge)