beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Since the misapprehension of the legal principle is merely a transport volume of the instant crime and is under the control and supervision of the mobile route by D, etc., it is difficult to deem that the Defendant was actually subject to de facto control over 2 km (hereinafter “the instant gold leader”) and thus, it cannot be deemed an owner or possessor of the said gold leader. Therefore, an amount equivalent to the domestic wholesale price of the said gold leader shall not be collected from the Defendant.
B. Even if the conviction of an unreasonable sentencing is recognized, the lower court’s punishment (a fine of KRW 5,00,000, an additional collection of KRW 100,870,000) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The lower court determined that the Defendant’s act of importing the gold bullion without filing a customs declaration in the manner of concealing it to D beyond its entry port and delivering it to D, based on the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, ① the amount equivalent to the domestic wholesale price at the time of committing a crime against the gold bullion, (i) the domestic wholesale price at the time of committing a crime against the gold bullion; and (ii) the Defendant’s act of importing the gold bullion to the customs without filing a customs declaration in the manner of hiding it into the Belgium after entering the Republic of Korea; (iii) the actual possession of the gold leader, which completed the customs declaration, and ultimately constitutes an essential and essential act completing the import of the said gold bullion; and (iv) the gold leader cannot be seen as forfeited from the final possessor, and thus, it is reasonable to collect the total amount of KRW 100,870,00,000, the domestic wholesale price at the time of the instant gold bullion from the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion that it is inappropriate to use the “an act of fraud” in the instant case.
(2) The above judgment of the court below is based on the records of this case.