Whether an attempted attempt to import goods without declaration under the former Customs Act is subject to forfeiture (affirmative)

Attempts to commit the crime of non-declaration of customs duties shall be punished in accordance with Article 182(2) of the former Customs Act (amended by Act No. 6305 of Dec. 29, 200), and if an attempted act is committed to bring the goods into the Republic of Korea without filing a declaration under Article 137 of the same Act, such attempted act constitutes "the case under Article 198(2) of the same Act, which provides for forfeiture of illegal goods of customs offenses, and Article 179(2) of the same Act."

Articles 137 (see current Article 241), 179(2) (see current Article 269(2)), 182(2) (see current Article 271(2)), and 198(2) (see current Article 282(2)) of the former Customs Act (Amended by Act No. 6305, Dec. 29, 200);

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Shin-chul

Incheon District Court Decision 2000No1753 delivered on April 26, 2001

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

If the evidence specified in the judgment of the court of first instance examined it by comparing it with the records, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant attempted to bring the goods of this case into Korea without filing a declaration under Article 137 of the Customs Act (amended by Act No. 6305 of Dec. 29, 200, hereinafter referred to as the "former Customs Act") in collusion with the non-indicted, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or rule of experience as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

2. On the second and third grounds for appeal

An attempted crime of import without declaration is punished in accordance with Article 182 (2) of the former Customs Act, and when such attempted crime is committed, it constitutes "the case of Article 179 (2) of the same Act, which provides for forfeiture of illegal goods," and also, according to the records, it is reasonable to view that the goods of this case are under the possession of the defendant who entered into a contract of carriage. Thus, the court below is justified to be subject to forfeiture of Article 198 (2) of the Customs Act, and there is no misapprehension of the legal principle as to forfeiture of goods under the Customs Act, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

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

Justices Cho Cho-Un (Presiding Justice)