beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant violated the Customs Act due to the misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, and the Defendant cannot be the subject of a crime of violating the Customs Act due to smuggling because it is not an on-site employee of the freight forwarder but an export of the goods. However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, which erred by misapprehending the legal principles, or by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant did not report the export, and did not own or possess the exported used cars. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to additional collection under the Customs Act, even though the Defendant did not own or possess the exported used cars.
B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (the penalty of imprisonment for four months and fine of three million won, the suspended sentence for two years, community service, 80 hours, 8,973, 898 won) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) based on the erroneous determination of facts or misapprehension of legal doctrine, and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court.
A) The fact that C had worked as the person in charge of C’s office as a business director of C’s office, and the Defendant was in charge of carrying used cars for which C’s shipment was requested, and confirmed whether C’s export declaration on used cars for which the export declaration was omitted, and recognized that C was in charge of loading goods to a ship only for used cars for which the export declaration was filed, and the offense of violating the Customs Act due to smuggling export under Articles 269(3)1 and 241(1) of the Customs Act is not an identification offense, and thus, the exporter of goods without filing a declaration with the head of the customs office may be the principal agent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do10984, Nov. 28, 2013). Article 279 of the Customs Act provides joint penal provisions (i.e.,, E’s crime committed by the Defendant).