Where the chief executive officer of a ship possesses the seafarer's goods, he/she shall be obliged to report tax payment under Article 4 of the Customs Act.

According to Article 4 of the former Customs Act (Act No. 296, Oct. 30, 53) Article 4, a taxpayer is not only obligated to file an import declaration but also the owner or possessor of the goods. Thus, if the captain of the ship possesses the goods of his/her crew, he/she shall file a duty to file

Article 4 of the Customs Act

(i)shares;

Defendant

Msan Support in the first instance, Daegu High School, etc. in the second instance, 1962, Jan. 5, 1961 Form No. 1221 delivered on January 5, 1962

We reverse the original judgment.

This case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The grounds of appeal by the chief public prosecutor of the Daegu High Public Prosecutor's Office shall be the same as the statement of the grounds of appeal.

(1) As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 2, and 3 of the first instance court's decision, it is hard to find that the above summary of the first instance court's decision is not owned by the defendant, even if it is not owned by the defendant, it is not recognized that the object is owned by the non-indicted 1, and even if it is not recorded in a reply from the head of Japan, Japan does not treat it as directors' cargo, and most of the subject matter is recognized as directors' cargo because most of the subject matter constitutes prohibited items imported, but it is an error in the misapprehension of legal principles, deliberation and evidence, and evidence collection method as to the above subject matter, since it is hard to find that the defendant's new delivery of the subject matter constitutes non-indicted 1,00,000 won or non-indicted 1's new delivery of the subject matter to the above non-indicted 1,000 won or non-indicted 1's new delivery of the subject matter by the defendant's new delivery of the subject matter to the court below's new delivery of the subject matter.

(2) According to Article 4 of the Customs Act, among the grounds of appeal, the summary of the Reasons for Appeal Nos. 1 and 2 as to the facts charged in the second instance, the taxpayer is not only the importer but also the possessor of the goods. Thus, the defendant constitutes the possessor of the goods (Evidence No. 11 through No. 42) in the office of the ship of this case. Thus, although the defendant is liable to report, the court below held that the defendant is not the owner of the goods, and there was an error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the person liable to report customs clearance, and the testimony of the non-indicted witness in the first instance trial, according to the defendant's statement based on the records and the testimony of the non-indicted in the first instance trial, the above non-indicted in the second instance, who is the crew of the vessel of this case, was in distress at the time of leaving Japan, and the above non-indicted in this case did not have any duty to report the goods on the ground that the defendant did not have any other goods on his own behalf and did not have any duty to report. Accordingly, the defendant's appeal cannot be justified.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges in order to make a new trial and judgment with the original decision.

The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Mag-Mag-man (Presiding Judge) Mag-Mag-Mag-ri, the Mag-Mag-ri,