[1] The case holding that it shall not be deemed that the smuggling was acquired in case where they are engaged in the collection of the agricultural products cleared by pretending to the travelers' personal effects for the purpose of sale from the Boba, coming to and from China

[2] The case holding that a person who purchased already imported agricultural products through lawful customs clearance cannot be held liable to report under Article 16 (1) of the Food Sanitation Act

[1] The case holding that even if the goods were imported for sale not for self-consumption, but for the purpose of selling them, they shall not be deemed to have acquired the goods of smuggling on the ground that they acquired the goods without filing a declaration under the Customs Act, unless there are special circumstances, such as: (a) the goods were imported in collusion with each other with the intent to evade customs duties and let them carry the goods in installments; and (b) so long as they submitted a travel confirmation form to a customs office, and completed the prescribed customs clearance procedure, they shall not be deemed to have imported the agricultural goods; and (c) the goods of smuggling were acquired even though they were aware that the goods were not carried in for self-consumption

[2] The case holding that the duty to report under Article 16 (1) of the Food Sanitation Act is a duty to impose on the importer of the food, etc. on the importer of the food, etc., and such duty cannot be deemed as a duty to report under Article 16 (1) of the Food Sanitation Act on the seller of the food, on the ground that the seller purchased domestic agricultural products from the importer of the food for the purpose of sale, not directly importing the domestic agricultural products, but purchasing already imported agricultural products

[1] Articles 269 and 274(1)1 of the Customs Act / [2] Articles 16(1) and 74 subparag. 4 of the Food Sanitation Act

Defendant 1 and two others

New Senior Superintendent;

Attorney Na-hee (for the defendant 1)

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months, and by imprisonment for two and three months, respectively.

With respect to Defendant 1, 55 days under confinement prior to the rendering of this judgment shall be included in the above sentence.

However, the execution of each of the above punishment against the Defendants shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

To the Defendants each order a community service for 80 hours.

The various domestic agricultural products ( evidence Nos. 1 through 12) that have been seized shall be confiscated from Defendant 1.

Of the facts charged in this case, the facts of violation of the Customs Act against Defendant 1 and violation of the Food Sanitation Act against Defendant 2 and 3 on the import food non-declaration.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant 1 is a person who purchases and sells agricultural products from persons who import and sell agricultural products from persons who visit China without paying customs duties on their personal effects and who purchase and sell them again to agricultural product wholesalers; Defendant 2 and 3 are persons who directly purchase and sell domestic products from persons who visit China and visit China;

Imported food which has not undergone a safety inspection by filing an import declaration with the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Stabilization Agency, notwithstanding that it is not sold in Korea:

1. Defendant 1:

On July 6, 2004, the members of the Non-Indicted Party’s farm operated by Ansan-si, Non-Indicted Party (“Non-Indicted Party”) sold domestic agricultural products from among Non-Indicted Party (“Non-Indicted Party”) equivalent to KRW 682,795,060, as indicated in [Attachment 1] from February 1 to July 6, 2004, to be 14,782,50, among Non-Indicted Party (“Non-Indicted Party”) who filed an import declaration with the Administrator of the Food and Drug Stabilization Agency, etc. of China, for which the safety inspection was not completed, to be sold to the domestic wholesalers, domestic agricultural products are not reported in amount to KRW 682,795,060.

2. Defendant 2:

On July 2, 2004, at the international passenger terminal parking lot located in Pyeongtaek-si, the sum of KRW 118,818,122 in Korea, including the black, green, and large area in the attached Form No. 73 times from February 27, 200 to July 7, 200, 118,818,122 in Korea, as shown in the List No. 73 times as shown in the List No. 118,818,122, each of which was reported to Defendant 1, by filing an import declaration with the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Stabilization Administration, etc., of China, which did not undergo safety inspection;

3. Defendant 3:

At the same place on July 7, 2004, as shown in the attached list of crimes (3) from March 3 to July 7 of the same year, it was sold to Defendant 1 the sum of KRW 218,106,890 in Korea, such as black and white, glutinous rice, glutinous rice, and melting glutinous glutinous glutinous glutinous glutinous glutinous glutinous glus, which did not undergo safety inspections by reporting to the Administrator of the Food and Drug Stabilization Agency, etc. on the same day, as shown in the attached list of crimes (3).

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective statements in this Court

1. Statement at this Court on the white paper of the witness;

1. Each entry of each prosecutor's interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. Each specification of transactions and a copy of receipt (section 190), each investigation report (section 374, page 390, and page 476) bound in the investigation records;

1. Entry into the records of seizure by prosecution;

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Articles 74, 4 subparag. 7, and 16(1) of the Food Sanitation Act; each choice of imprisonment;

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Calculation of days of detention;

Article 57 of the Criminal Code; Defendant 1

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act; Defendants

1. Social service order;

Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Probation, etc. Act; Defendants

1. Confiscation;

Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act; Defendant 1

Judgment on the acquittal portion

1. A. Summary of Defendant 1’s violation of the Customs Act:

Defendant 1, at the international passenger terminal parking lot located in Pyeongtaek-si on July 2, 2004, acquired KRW 545,00,00 with the knowledge of the fact that Defendant 2's 84 kilograms purchased from Boi-si, such as Gi-si, China, and 144 kilograms today, without filing an import declaration with the head of the customs office, and carried in to the Republic of Korea by pretending personal effects, and acquired goods in attached Form 4 from middle smuggling importers, such as Defendant 2 and 3, from February 23, 2004 to July 7, 2004 in the list of goods acquisition, in accordance with the same manner, the domestic agricultural products in attached Form 5, such as 726,807,62, such as 12 domestic products, among the items in the list of goods items, such as 726,807,62.

B. Therefore, according to the evidence of the judgment and the testimony of the witness shot, it is recognized that the above defendant acquired the domestic agricultural products that he brought into the Republic of Korea by Defendant 2, etc. as stated in the facts charged.

However, according to the above evidence, as to whether the domestic agricultural products acquired by Defendant 1, etc. from Defendant 2, etc. were imported without filing a declaration under the Customs Act, the so-called "Sari" is an international passenger ship, entering Korea and China, selling various daily necessities from China, and selling them to China mainly for domestic collection. A customs officers recognized such agricultural products carried in as travelers' personal effects for self-consumption and exempted from customs duties within the range of 50 kilograms (5 kilograms per item) pursuant to the relevant provisions. Accordingly, in case where they carried in China, they first undergo a quarantine inspection by public officials belonging to the National Plant Quarantine Service of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry after undergoing a quarantine inspection by the National Plant Quarantine Service of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Accordingly, if you prepare and submit a consumer's personal cards containing the name, quantity, weight, and purchase price of agricultural products to be carried in at the time of customs clearance, a customs officer opens packaging materials, and then then purchased them to verify whether the daily items, weight, etc. of agricultural products to be carried in by them are consistent with the scope of Defendant 1, so-called one customs clearance.

Accordingly, even if Defendant 1 imported agricultural products for the purpose of sale, not for self-consumption, but for the purpose of selling them, barring special circumstances such as Defendant 1's collusion with each other to evade customs duties and let them carry agricultural products divided and carry in, it cannot be deemed that he imported agricultural products without filing a declaration as prescribed by the Customs Duties Act, unless he/she had prepared a travel confirmation statement, submitted it to the customs office, and passed the prescribed customs clearance procedure, and Defendant 1 acquired them even though he/she knew that the agricultural products were not carried in for self-consumption.

2. A. Summary of the violation of the Food Sanitation Act with respect to the failure to report imported foods to Defendant 2 and 3

Without filing an import declaration with an administrative authority:

(1) Defendant 2:

On July 3, 2004, at the international passenger terminal parking lot located in Pyeongtaek-si, the amount of 110,000,000 won in total, including, in the same manner as shown in the attached Table of Crimes (2) from February 27, 200 to July 7, 200 in the same manner, purchase and import of 20,00,00 won agricultural products of China, each of which is domestically produced from the scule line and sculp line, Chinese, Scule line, and scula, and imported them, and then purchase and import them more than 73 times in the same manner as shown in the attached Table of Crimes.

(2) Defendant 3:

On July 1 of the same year, at the same place as of July 1, 200 of the same year, it was imported by purchasing and importing 200,000 Korean black, Chinese, and Chinese, Chinese, Chinese, and Chinese, Chinese, Chinese, and Chinese, and by importing them. The amount equivalent to KRW 201,00,000,00 in total, as shown in the attached list of crimes in the same manner from March 3 to July 7 of the same year, as shown in the attached list of crimes (3) of the same year.

B. According to each of the above evidence, the facts that Defendant 2 and 3 purchased agricultural products from the upper world as stated in the facts charged are acknowledged.

However, Article 16 (1) of the Food Sanitation Act provides that "any person who intends to import --- food, etc. for sale shall report to the Minister of Health and Welfare and the Commissioner of the Korea Food and Drug Administration." The duty to report under the above provision is imposed on an importer of the food, etc. directly, and even if Defendant 2 and 3 purchased domestic agricultural products from them for sale purposes, this does not directly import domestic agricultural products, but merely purchased agricultural products already imported through lawful customs clearance procedures, as seen in paragraph (1) of the same Article. Thus, the above defendants are not obligated to report under Article 16 (1) of the Food Sanitation Act.

3. Therefore, since each of the above facts charged against the defendants constitutes a case where there is no proof of facts constituting the crime, the above facts charged shall be pronounced not guilty under Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Judges Dok-han