(a) Applicable provisions of Acts to bringing in goods of which import licenses are not effective;

(b) Responsibility for an offense where the importer intends to import a seed, which is an import-restricted item, with a vegetable seed which is an item;

C. Whether Article 33 subparag. 5 of the Trading Business Act is applicable to cases where an attempted import is intended with no license (affirmative)

A. A license for import under Article 137(1) of the Customs Act is granted to goods that are identical or recognized as identical or similar to the goods stated in the declaration, and it does not have effect on other goods. Thus, other goods are only a crime of non-licensed import under Article 181 of the Customs Act, and there is no room for establishing a crime of false declaration under Article 188 of the same Act.

B. The seed is a vegetable seed, and the seed is a vegetable seed, and it does not belong to the same division of the plant classification. Thus, the seed, which is an import-restricted item, stated in the import import import declaration for the purpose of disguised import of vegetable seed, which is the importer and the same item, is not identical to the seed, which the defendant intends to import, and thus the effect of the import license of this case does not extend to the seed, and therefore the defendant's so-called "vegetable import" constitutes a crime of attempted import without permission.

C. Article 29 subparag. 3 of the Trading Business Act prohibits the act of entrusting the export or import without due process, and even if the non-licensed import was attempted, there is no complaint for the crime of violation of Article 33 subparag. 5 of the same Act (Article 33 of the same Act).

(a)Article 137(1), Article 181, Article 182(c), Article 29(3), Article 33(5) of the Customs Act;

Supreme Court en banc Decision 83Do2193 Decided December 13, 1983

Defendant

Defendant

Busan District Court Decision 82No1544 delivered on July 19, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. A license for import under Article 137 (1) of the Customs Act is granted to goods that are identical or identical to the goods mentioned in the import declaration, and other goods should not have its effect. In other words, from the policy perspective of the appropriate supply of and demand for domestic goods and the securing of collection of customs duties, it shall be concluded that there is no effect on the import restriction item and the import restriction item, including the existence of import restriction, tax rate, production place, price, etc., and other goods whose kinds, quality, etc. are not recognized to be identical at least to the goods mentioned in the import declaration. Thus, in this case, there is no import license, and therefore, there is no room for establishing a false import declaration under Article 181 of the Customs Act, and a party member's precedent contrary to this, is reversed as it is decided on December 13, 1983.

2. According to the court below's lawful determination, the defendant's seeds are restricted items imported without the permission of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, and they cannot be imported without the permission of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, and they are imported with the importer's Dong-approved items (not required to obtain permission from the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries), which are hard to identify them in appearance (not required to obtain permission from the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries), and asked the defendant to erase and pack the trademark with telephone, and send them to the North Korean seedling company, which is the owner of Japan, as if they arrive at the port of Busan, and upon the arrival of the port of Busan, the import declaration of the remaining seeds was discovered during the process of the inspection of the present seeds, but they were discovered during the process of the inspection of the present seeds. Since the defendant did not belong to the category of vegetable seeds, and since the seeds do not require permission of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, they did not intend to import the imported seeds with the permission of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, they did not require permission of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, and Fisheries, so that they did not intend to obtain the import seeds from the first 1 of the defendant's.

3. Meanwhile, since the provisions of Article 29 subparag. 3 of the Act on the Violation of the Trade Business Act of the defendant at the time of the original adjudication prohibit the act of exporting or leaving the goods without following due process, even though the defendant attempted to import spawn seeds without a license, the crime of violation of the Act on the Trade Business is established, and even if there are no complaint and there are various circumstances where spawn out, the above circumstances also do not affect the establishment of the crime of crime of prosecution, and there are no grounds for appeal as to this point.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)