The penal provisions prescribed in the Customs Act shall apply to cases where foreign goods are leaked without customs clearance even though the standards for imposing customs duties are fixed and the amount of special bonded transportation license which is not secured by the customs duties becomes final and conclusive.

The penal provisions prescribed in the Customs Act shall apply to cases where foreign goods are leaked without customs clearance even though the standards for imposing customs duties are fixed and the amount of special bonded transportation license which is not secured by the customs duties becomes final and conclusive.

Article 180 of the Customs Act

Defendant 1 and one other

Seoul Criminal Area of the first instance, Seoul High Court Decision 69No9 delivered on July 23, 1970

The Defendants’ appeals are dismissed.

We examine the defendants' attorney Kim Jong-hwan's grounds of appeal.

According to the records, the issue that Defendants had no intention to evade customs duties and there was no act of evading customs duties is controversial as to the facts lawfully recognized, and the standards for imposing customs duties are not established under Article 5 subparagraph 2 of the Customs Act at the time of the act of this case (hereinafter the same shall apply) and they are included in the Ri of this case in accordance with the provisions of Articles 127 through 134 of the Customs Service Act. Brazil obtained a special bonded transportation license without securing customs duties and operated bonded transportation in Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul to the bonded transportation station, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, and did not arrive at the destination of transportation within the licensed period under Article 131 of the same Act, the court below acknowledged that there was no violation of the provisions of the Customs Service Act concerning the bonded transportation since the defendants received the goods of this case to the Seoul Customs Office, and there was no violation of the provisions of the Customs Service Act concerning the bonded transportation under Article 5 of the same Act, and thus, the court below's determination that there was no violation of the provisions of the Customs Service Act concerning the bonded transportation license of this case.

We examine the Defendants’ defense counsel’s grounds for appeal.

The issue is that the defendants did not participate in the fact of the crime of this case and committed the crime in the past and the sentencing is excessive. However, this reason is without merit since it does not constitute a legitimate ground for appeal in this case according to the provisions of Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

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

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Park Jae-dong (Presiding Judge)