The case affirming the court below's decision that the court below's determination that the court below's application for modification of the bill of amendment to the Foreign Trade Act was justified and found guilty on the ground that the main facts charged with the violation of the duty evasion preliminary charges were changed to the non-licensed import preliminary charges, and the conjunctive facts charged were changed to the import license obtained through fraud, etc., and the import

A prosecutor indicted the first instance court on the charge that the Defendant had obtained early import recommendation and import approval for the purpose of evading customs duties by importing raw materials without the intention of processing and selling them in Korea without the intention of export. The first instance court affirmed the first instance court's first instance court's amendment of the indictment that the Defendant obtained early import license by fraud or other improper means, and subsequently declared the Defendant not guilty, the first instance court applied for the amendment of the indictment that the Defendant violated Article 68 subparagraph 5 of the Foreign Trade Act and Article 19 (1) of the Foreign Trade Act with the approval of early import by fraud or other improper means, and the court below approved the amendment of the indictment. In addition, the first instance court's amendment of the indictment that found the Defendant guilty as to the violation of the Foreign Trade Act with the intention of importing and selling in Korea without the permission of the Defendant for domestic sales is just because the first instance court's amendment of the indictment was included in the first indictment of duty evasion, the first instance court's amendment of the indictment, as part of the facts charged, including the changes in the indictment in the first and the indictment.

Article 298 of the Criminal Procedure Act; Articles 180, 181, 182(2) of the Customs Act; Articles 19(1) and 68 subparag. 5 of the Foreign Trade Act

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Jeon Soo-soo

Busan High Court Decision 90No887 delivered on May 9, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

As to the grounds of appeal by defense counsel

1. According to the records, the prosecutor: (a) in collusion with the non-indicted 1 on August 6, 1987, imported raw materials as early raw materials without the intention of ex officio export; (b) obtained early recommendation from the National Fishery Products Inspection Station under the Korea Fisheries Products Inspection Agency for the purpose of evading customs duties by fraud or other improper means; and (c) obtained the approval of import not exceeding 125,000 kilograms; and (d) obtained the approval of import not exceeding 600,00 won from the head of the Seoul Trust Administration for the purpose of preparing for evading customs duties equivalent to 97,320,00 won; (c) in the first instance, the prosecutor submitted an application for ex officio import recommendation from the National Fishery Products Inspection Agency on August 6, 1987 for the same purpose on September 19, 1987; and (d) submitted an application for ex officio import approval not later than 125,000 kilograms, 437,000 U.S. dollars with the approval of ex officio import approval for the same purpose.

In light of the above facts charged, it is clear that the facts charged of violation of the Foreign Trade Act, which the defendant, obtained permission to amend the bill of indictment at the court below, is included in part of the crime, such as the facts charged for evading customs duties first indicted by the prosecutor or the facts charged in the first instance court and the facts charged in the first instance court thereafter, and it does not interfere with the defendant's defense right. Therefore, the court below's decision that permitted the amendment of the bill of indictment at the court below is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit.

2. The court below is justified in finding the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in violation of the Foreign Trade Act. Even if the Defendant was not found to have made a mistake as to the perception of illegality, it cannot be said that there was a justifiable ground for the Defendant’s mistake solely on the grounds of the prosecutor’s changes in indictment, etc. Even though he did not import the freezing equipment for domestic sales purposes. According to the records, the Defendant voluntarily led to the confession of the fact that he obtained the most approval of import to import the processed export in order to import it for domestic sales, and such an act constitutes obtaining the approval of import by fraudulent or other unlawful means under Article 68 subparag. 5 of the Foreign Trade Act. The Defendant’s assertion is nothing more than an independent opinion derived from misunderstanding

For this reason, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice) Park Young-dong Kim Jong-ho