The meaning of "a fraudulent or other unlawful means" under Article 180 (1) of the Customs Act

According to Article 180 (1) of the Customs Act, a crime of evading customs duties is established when a person evades all or part of customs duties by deceit or other wrongful means. Since the act of fraud or other improper means means means making it possible to evade customs duties, it refers to the act of making it possible to evade customs duties and which is recognized as an act of denial by social norms, it includes not only the case of evading customs duties, but also the case of making it impossible to determine customs duties by means of smuggling that directly unload the relics without filing an import declaration.

Article 180(1) of the Customs Act

Defendant 1 and seven others

Prosecutor

Attorney Park Do-won (National Assembly), Park Jae-il (National Assembly)

Gwangju High Court Decision 74No64 delivered on May 15, 1974

All appeals are dismissed.

(1) We examine the Prosecutor’s grounds of appeal against the Defendants.

The court below cited the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance that there is no evidence to find guilty on the television 105 portion of the facts charged in this case. However, even after examining the records, it cannot be recognized that the judgment of first instance contains any illegality in the incomplete hearing or in the lack of reason, and even if the records are recorded, the judgment of the court of first instance is within the exclusive authority of the judge of the court of fact-finding, and even if the records are recorded, it is not recognized that the judgment of the court of fact-finding has any illegality in the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence in this part, and it is a question that eventually leads to the assertion of mistake of facts

(2) We examine the grounds of appeal by Defendant 1 to 4 and his defense counsel.

[1] Determination of the incomplete hearing of Defendant 1 or 4 and the defense counsel of Defendant 1 or 4;

The court of first instance, which accepted the original judgment, examined the evidence along with the record of the original judgment, and did not recognize that the existence of communication in the original judgment, the method of fraud, the smuggling goods, the collection price, and other alleged facts are unlawful in the incomplete hearing.

[2] Determination of the misunderstanding of facts and a violation of the rules of evidence by Defendants 1, 3, 1 and the defense counsel of the said Defendants and 2 and 4;

Even if the record of the case was prepared, it cannot be recognized that there is an illegality in recognizing the facts constituting the offense in the original judgment without any evidence, or another violation of the rules of evidence, and that there is an error in the rules of evidence, and that there is an objection to attacking the original judgment by claiming a mistake of facts, the original judgment cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal in this case where the original court has maintained imprisonment for less than

[3] Defendant 1, 3, and 4’s assertion that the sentencing of the original judgment is excessive, and that the determination of the sentence in the original judgment is excessive, cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal in this case.

[4] Judgment on the assertion of violation of the law by Defendant 1 and his defense counsel and the assertion of omission of judgment by Defendant 4 and his defense counsel;

The court below's assertion that Defendant 1 did not take a self-regulation measure against Defendant 1, and that Defendant 4's main case was so forced and that there was no possibility of expectation. However, the court below's assertion that the self-denunciation did not constitute a reason for discretionary mitigation, not a reason for discretionary mitigation, and that the court below did not recognize that the court below did not take a voluntary mitigation, and it did not err in the law, and the court below's assertion that Defendant 4's assertion was unfair sentencing (the court below's sentencing of the court of first instance is excessive in light of the circumstances in which the defendant's first instance court's decision on the defendant's punishment was judged reasonable in light of the borrower's name as the driver's number employed by the borrower, and it is clear that the defendant's assertion on the above defendant's punishment would result in an argument of unfair sentencing, and therefore, it cannot be said that there was a violation of a law in the original judgment and an omission of judgment.

[5] Determination on Defendant 2’s assertion on Defendant 2’s violation of the law, misapprehension of the legal principle, lack of reasons and inconsistency of reasons;

According to Article 180(1) of the Customs Act, the crime of evading customs duties is established when all or part of the customs duties are evaded by deceit or other unlawful means. Since the act of deception or other improper means means means means making it possible to evade customs duties, it refers to the act of making it possible to evade customs duties and which is recognized as illegitimate by social norms, it shall include not only the case of evading customs duties as an active act such as deception but also the case of making it impossible to determine customs duties by means of smuggling that directly rears the relics without filing an import declaration, and the act of evading customs duties shall be deemed to be a case of bringing them up by bringing them up without filing a declaration with the customs collector.

Therefore, Defendant 2's participation in the smuggling of the first instance court's reasoning that Defendant 2 sought to transfer the smuggling from No. 11, which was inside the territorial sea of Korea, in collusion with the Defendants in the first instance court's explanation that he would be involved in the smuggling of the vessel, and lent this vessel to the place where the monarch was located at the time of the original judgment, between the State and Chodo, and transferred this vessel to the place where the above monet was located at the time of the original judgment, and loaded the smuggling of the first instance court's reasoning that Defendant 2, who was admitted by the court below, moved the smuggling of the first instance court's order to the head of the customs office without filing an import declaration at the coast of the Do office in the south-west, the Do office in the territory of the Republic of Korea. The court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the defendant's violation of the duty evasion rate under Article 180 (1) of the Customs Act, but did not apply to the defendant's violation of the duty evasion rate under Article 30 of the Criminal Act.

(3) All of the appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Red Man-Man (Presiding Justice) No. 544, Dec. 1, 200