Article 6 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Discretionary mitigation

Article 194 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which provides for aggravated punishment as to the violation of the Customs Act, is applied to the fine branches under Article 6 (5) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes.

Article 6 of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes Act, Article 194 of the Customs Act, and Article 53 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 77Do2114 delivered on September 13, 197 (Dakhd 11688; Supreme Court Decision 25 third-type21; Decision 6(5)1405 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes; Decision 368(28)1482 of the Criminal Procedure Act; Court Gazette 569No10275 pages)

Defendant 1 and 20 others

Prosecutor

Seoul Criminal Court of the first instance (72 Gohap233)

The part of the judgment of the court below pertaining to Defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 shall be reversed.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for three years and by a fine of 6,201,780 won, by imprisonment for four years and fine of 14,330,640 won, by imprisonment for four years and fine of 14,330,640 won, by imprisonment for four years and fine of 14,330,640 won, by imprisonment for two years and six months and fine of 6,201,780 won, by imprisonment for two years and six months and fine of 6,201,780 won, by imprisonment for one year and six months, and by imprisonment for nine years.

When Defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 did not pay the above fine, the Defendants shall be confined respectively in the old house for the period calculated by converting the amount of KRW 30,000 by one day.

Defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 shall each be included in the above imprisonment with prison labor for the Defendants, 150 days each of the detention days prior to the pronouncement of the original judgment.

However, for the defendants 6, 7, and 8, the execution of the above imprisonment with prison labor for each of four years from the date of this decision shall be suspended.

Men’s 2 (Evidence Nos. 5), 20 (Evidence Nos. 11), 24 (Evidence Nos. 12), 20 (Evidence Nos. 13), 48 (Evidence No. 15), 48 (Evidence No. 16), 300 (Evidence No. 16), 160 (Evidence No. 16), 160 (Evidence No. 16), 200 (Evidence No. 16), 160 (Evidence No. 16), 200), 300 (Evidence No. 16), 150), 200 (Evidence No. 20), 4200), 300 (Evidence No. 20), 400), 400), 1500,000,00

Each appeal filed by a public prosecutor against Defendant 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 and each appeal filed by Defendant 12, and 13 are dismissed.

Grounds for appeal by a prosecutor

The summary of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor is that the judgment of the court below was erroneous and erroneous, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

In other words, according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is sufficient to recognize that the court below found the defendant 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 guilty of the charge of the charge of the charge of the charge of the charge of the defendant 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 10, the charge of the charge of the charge of the charge of the charge of the defendant 19,20, the charge of aiding and abetting and abetting the charge of the defendant 19,20, the charge of the charge of the charge of the charge of the defendant 21, the charge of the charge of the charge of the defendant 21, and the charge of the charge of the charge of the defendant 9, the charge of the charge of the charge of the charge of the defendant 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 211.

2. The judgment of the court below is not exempt from reversal because it erred in applying the law and affected the judgment.

(A) Article 6(6) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes Act (the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes Act (the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes Act) and Article 182(2) of the Customs Act, which are provisions on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes Act hereinafter referred to as the Aggravated Punishment

(B) According to Article 194(1) of the Customs Act, the provisions of Articles 9, 10(2), 11, 32(2), 38(1)2 and 53 of the Criminal Act shall not apply to a person who commits an act violating the penal provisions of this Act.

“In the application of Article 16 of the Criminal Act to paragraph 2, whether or not there is a legitimate reason in the mistake of the law.”

Since Article 38(1)2 of the Criminal Act provides that "the provisions of the preceding Paragraph(2) shall not apply to the case where a person is to be punished by imprisonment," in the application of the Customs Act, a concurrent offender cannot be punished by imprisonment pursuant to Article 38(1)2 of the same Act, and a discretionary mitigation cannot be carried out pursuant to Article 53 of the same Act, the judgment of the court below, despite the fact that the judgment below, applied Article 53 of the Criminal Act to the two criminal facts of Defendant 10, 6-2 criminal facts of Defendant 10, 7-3 criminal facts of Defendant 2, 3, 4, and 5 at the original time of Defendant 13, 7-3 criminal facts of Defendant 2, 3, 4, and 5, i.e., the discretionary mitigation

3. The judgment of the court below is not reversed because it has committed an unlawful act that did not judge the request for a trial.

(A) Even though the facts charged in the indictment No. 4 against Defendant 1 were prosecuted for the preliminary offense of obtaining a license, the lower court held that the facts charged were prosecuted as an attempted crime and that the attempted crime was not constituted, and did not render a judgment as to the preliminary charges, and the lower court committed an unlawful act.

(B) The prosecutor's facts charged against Defendant 9 constitute a violation of the Act on the Special Cases Concerning the Indictment (1). Since the fact that the court below found Defendant 9 guilty is the conjunctive facts charged, the court below should first decide on the main indictment, and if the main indictment is not charged, the court below should decide on the ancillary facts, and should decide on the ancillary facts. The court below's judgment that found Defendant 9 guilty of the request for a trial without any judgment on the main facts charged was unlawful.

4. The court below determined that since the amount of punishment imposed was erroneous, it cannot be exempted from reversal.

In other words, with respect to Defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 (all of the defendants convicted at the original judgment), the amount of the sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable and unfair.

The grounds for appeal by the Defendants

1. The summary of Defendant 1’s defense counsel’s grounds for appeal by Nonindicted 1 is as follows: First, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles that affected the conclusion of the judgment.

In other words, it is a small quantity that Defendant 1 attempted to import the product in an attempted attempt, and the decision of the court below was made by the second instance. Second, the decision of the court below on the punishment against Defendant 1 is too unreasonable. The summary of the grounds for appeal by Defendant 1’s defense counsel is that Defendant 1’s defense counsel did not commit the crime at the time of original conviction, but the court below erred in the misapprehension of facts due to the mistake of physical evidence and thereby found Defendant 1 guilty.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal by Defendant 2’s defense counsel does not constitute an offense at the time of original judgment, but the court below erred by mismisunderstanding the facts and thereby finding the guilty.

3. The summary of defendant 3's appeal is that the judgment of the court below is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts which affected the judgment.

In other words, Defendant 3 did not have taken part in the case of Lee Jong-ho's Lee Jong-ho's Lee's Lee-ho's Lee, and even in the case of the kn's kn's kn's kn's kn's kn's kn's kn's kn's kn's kn's kn's kn's kn's kn's kn's kn's kn'

4. The summary of the grounds for appeal by Defendant 4’s defense counsel does not constitute an offense at the time of original judgment, but the court below found Defendant 4 guilty on the ground that Defendant 4 committed an unlawful act by misunderstanding of facts due to a mistake of evidence.

5. The summary of the grounds for appeal by Defendant 5’s defense counsel is that there was an error of misconception of facts that affected the judgment, first, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in matters of law. In other words, Defendant 5 merely did not have the fact between the two different titles of the original city 1, the original city 1, and it is nothing more than a two-way or one-way disease according to the defendant 2 and 3 without the intention of smuggling 2 and 3. Second, the judgment of the court below against Defendant 5 is too unreasonable.

6. As the gist of the grounds for appeal by the defendant 6 himself and his defense counsel is as follows: first, the defendant 6 is merely unsatisfing the upper defendant's command that he dealt with; the court below found the defendant guilty of aiding and abetting the defendant to be pushed down; second, the court below's sentencing against the defendant 6 is too unreasonable.

7. The summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant 7 is the same as the defendant 6 in the upper case. First, the defendant 7 was driving a ship in the upper court's order with an incidental order in the upper defendant's knife. Even though the upper defendant was completely aware that the upper defendant was under a smuggling, the court below erred in finding the defendant guilty of the charge of the smuggling for the defendant's smuggling. Second, the amount of the sentence imposed by the court below against the defendant 7 is too unreasonable.

8. The summary of Defendant 8’s defense counsel’s grounds for appeal is that there was an error of mistake of facts that affected the conclusion of the judgment. That is, Defendant 8 acquired the original 50,000 won from the Nonindicted Party as security from the Nonindicted Party, and even at the market price, the amount of KRW 2,00,000 is limited to KRW 7,00,000, such as the original decision, and the amount of punishment imposed by the lower court against Defendant 8 is too unreasonable.

9. The summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant 9's defense counsel is that the judgment of the court below is erroneous in misconception of facts that affected the judgment.

In other words, 1,50,00 won at the market price of 80 Escar 80, even 40,000 won purchased by Defendant 9. The lower court recognized that Defendant 9 purchased the total amount of 695,525,000 won at the market price of 695, and that the amount of punishment imposed by the lower court against Defendant 9 is too unreasonable.

10. The summary of the grounds for appeal by Defendant 12 is that the judgment of the court below is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts that affected the conclusion of the judgment. In other words, even if he purchased domestic goods, he did not know that he was stolen, so the judgment of the court below was erroneous. Second, the judgment of the court below against Defendant 12 is too unreasonable.

11. The summary of Defendant 13’s attorney-at-law’s grounds for appeal by Nonindicted 4 was erroneous in the judgment of the court below, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding of facts by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or misleads the court below. In other words, the court below found Defendant 13 guilty on the premise that the defendant 13 was aware of the fact that the customs duty stolen was a customs stolen, but there was no evidence to acknowledge that the above goods were a customs stolen on the single record, and the court below erred by misunderstanding of facts or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations. Second, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

In other words, the court below sentenced the above articles to be confiscated from the defendant under Article 186 of the Customs Act because they belong to the possession of the criminal as customs goods, but the above articles were seized by the defendant's voluntary submission of the defendant's wife and the defendant's wife and non-indicted 5's possession, barring special circumstances, since they were all women's use, unless there are special circumstances, the court below should examine who is the ownership of the defendant. Thus, the court below's confiscation from the defendant on the premise that they are possession of the defendant's possession of the defendant merely because they are nothing more than anything else, did not err in the law of Article 186 of the Customs Act or affected the judgment due to mistake of facts

Third, the amount of punishment sentenced by the court below against Defendant 13 is too unreasonable.

3.1. First of all, among the reasons for appeal by the prosecutor, we examine whether there was an appeal that found not guilty of mistake in the part of the judgment below which acquitted about the facts charged (9), (10), (11), and (13). According to the prosecutor's records of the Seoul District Criminal Court 71 high-514 and the prosecutor's each protocol of statement about Nonindicted 6,7, and8, the prosecutor's preparation of the prosecutor's protocol, the suspect's statement about the defendant 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18, and each letter of statement prepared by the same person, such as the prosecutor's chief, which is the fact that the prosecutor's statement was imported in a way that it is impossible to determine which kind of times the defendant's identity cannot be confirmed from a foreigner who could not know the number of such days, and the fact that the defendant was closely imported from a gold ing and visibility

However, the indictment against the accused should be made by specifying the date, time, place, and method of the crime. Accordingly, the court should specify the above facts about each crime in order to pronounce the accused guilty, and there is sufficient and clear evidence to acknowledge it for each specific crime as above.

The facts charged are as follows. (9), (10), (1) and (13) as to the above facts alleged by the prosecutor, and there is evidence to be recognized for each of the specified facts. The prosecutor, as stated in the facts charged, is about 13, 14, 15, 17, and 18, as stated in the [Attachment 9] list 13, 14, 16, 17, and 18, as well as about 7, 90, 197, 197, 197, 100, 197, 197, 100, 197, 197, 197, 10,000,0000,000 won and 10,000,000 won and 17,000,000 won and 17,000,000 won and 9,000 won and 17,000,00 won.

However, each of the above facts charged are examined as follows. According to the Seoul Criminal Court records of 71Da514 and the statement of Nonindicted 6, 7 of the prosecutor's preparation and the testimony at the court below's decision on May 18, 1971, Nonindicted 7 purchased KRW 2.280,00 won of gold leader, which Nonindicted 7 called Defendant 14 by phone call to Defendant 13 on May 18, 1971, and Nonindicted 7 purchased KRW 1.14,140,00 won of gold leader by finding Defendant 14 on his behalf during July.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the above 17 gold bars listed in attached Table 37 of the indictment that the above Defendants were sealed. The above 17 gold bars cannot be used as evidence for conviction against the Defendants (the above 14) and Defendant 14 out of the 7-year newspaper Nos. 7444, May 24, 197, and Defendant 17 were sold to the 17-year newspaper Nos. 9744, Nov. 7, 197, and Defendant 17, Nov. 7, 197, Defendant 197, Defendant 2, who purchased the above 17-year newspaper Nos. 97, and Defendant 1 and 7-year newspaper Nos. 97, Nov. 7, 1971, Defendant 197.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that each gold leader purchased by Nonindicted 8 from Defendant 15 was a gold leader indicated in the facts charged against the Defendants by the prosecutor (9) (in light of the second suspect examination record prepared by Defendant 15, the same Defendant was sold to Nonindicted 8 from among the 10 gold bars sealed in the middle of December of 1971, among the 10 gold bars sealed in the ship of the nationality Pacific No. Pacific, the second suspect examination record prepared by the prosecutor on October 15, 1971, among the 10 gold bars sealed in the ship of the same year, the second gold bars imported from the ship of the nationality Pacific No. Pacific, and the second gold bars imported from the ship of the same month on January 1, 1972, and the second gold bars imported from the ship of the same month, among the gold bars imported from the ship of the same month, there is no statement in the attached Form 15.

Therefore, Defendant 15’s statement alone cannot be readily concluded that Defendant 15’s gold bars sold to Nonindicted 8, and this gold bars that Defendant 15 imported to Nonindicted 8.

Thus, the defendants' interrogation records and statements prepared by the defendants against the defendants in the chief public prosecutor's investigation officer as evidence of the defendants' leader's abduction and clock import are not sufficient. The court below argues that all of the above statements made by the defendants to the same-sex-sex-sex-sex-sex-sex-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-si, who reported to the Seoul Local Public Prosecutor on February 22, 1972 to the defendant 13,14,15,17, and 18 of the investigation records, together with the attached list attached to the indictment.

(1) At around August 19, 1971, 300 Escar City 30 U.S. crew from Chinese seafarers in terms of name in Denmark, the nationality of the ocean-going ship at the port of Busan.

(2) 1971.8.20.경 위 부산항에서 중국선원 진명불상자로부터 여자용 에니카 금 손목시계 300개를 밀수입하고, 피의자 피고인 19는 1971.8.1.부터 피고인 20은 1970.9.경부터 각 1972.2.경까지 사이에 피의자 푀완수 둥이 위의 금괴를 밀수입하는데 그 정을 알고 밀수품을 운반하고 운반시 경계를 하여 동 밀수를 방조하고, 피의자 피고인 21은 1971.10.22.부터 1971.10.30.까지 사이에 위 동아상사 사무실에서 피의자 피고인 14로부터 동인들이 밀수입한 앞에 본 여자용 에니카 손목시계 300개를 여러 번에 걸쳐서 도합금 270만 원을 국고 관세장물인 정을 알고 취득하였다고 이 사건 공소사실 (9)(10)(11)(13)과 꼭 같은 내용의 범죄사실을 인지하고 있음을 볼 수가 있다. 그러나

(1) Defendant 17’s statement is that Defendant 17 made a statement that the same person made and submitted to the prosecutor as of February 24, 1972 and Defendant 17 of Defendant 17 of Defendant 17 of Defendant 1 of Defendant 1 of Defendant 1 of Defendant 1’s written interrogation of Defendant 17 of Defendant 1 of Defendant 1 of Defendant 1 of Defendant 1972, the two-one of the contents is identical to the facts stated in the attached list of the indictment attached to the indictment (hereinafter “attached list”), and the remainder is not in the indictment, and there is no difference between the date and the date, and the quantity of the two-way gold bars or the two-way gold bars are different, and it is not possible to find any statement that fully consistent with the attached list is identical to the suspect interrogation document prepared by the prosecutor of March 14, 1972.

(2) Following Defendant 13’s statement: (a) the suspect was prepared on February 24, 1972 and submitted to the prosecutor; (b) the suspect was charged with 9-10 gold bars over 5-6 times from June 1968 to November 196; (c) the suspect was 30 gold bars over 7-8 hours with Nonindicted 10, 11, 12, and 13; and (d) the suspect was 15 to 17; and (e) the suspect was 15 to 17; and (e) the suspect was 35 to 40 gold bars from April 197 to January 16, 197; and (e) the suspect was 14 to 15 to 190 gold bars; and (e) the suspect was 14 to 15 to 160 gold bars; and (e) the suspect was 14 to 170 to 1960 gold bars; and (e) the suspect was 15 to 197.7.

(3) The following statement by Defendant 14 stated that the same person imported 1 or 2 times from May 24, 1971 to February 1972 as an average of 8-9 times between the first and the first order of February 1972, and then imported 200 to 150 items each time, i.e., i., 200 to 150 items, and the suspect examination protocol for Defendant 14, prepared by the prosecutor on March 3, 1972, i.e., she stated that she imported tamps and tamps more than seven times, but 2 indictments are not written, and tamps and tamps are not in accord with the suspect's statement prepared by the prosecutor on March 14, 1972. The suspect examination protocol for Defendant 14, which was prepared by the prosecutor on March 3, 1972, shall be consistent with the suspect's statement in attached Form 12.

(4) The following suspect's statement is health. The suspect's statement was prepared as of February 24, 1970 and submitted to the prosecutor on his 72.2.2.2.2. The suspect was sealed with 3 gold bars as of April 16, 1970. The suspect was charged with 35 to 40 gold bars over 7-8 hours, such as the suspect from May 1971 until February 3, 1971. The suspect was charged with 14,16, 17, and 18, and 50 gold bars and 600 gold bars over 150 gold bars, and the suspect was charged with 17 gold bars, and the prosecutor's statement was prepared with 3 gold bars during 197, and the suspect was prepared with 14,00 gold bars and 17,00 gold bars, and the suspect's statement was prepared as of February 197, 197.

(5) The following statement by Defendant 16 of the criminal suspect stated that the same person stated in the self-written statement prepared on February 24, 1972 and submitted to the prosecutor by the same person as that of Defendant 15-2 on February 24, 1972, and that Defendant 16 of Defendant 16 in the suspect examination protocol prepared by the prosecutor on March 8, 1972 was sealed over 11 times, and that he was sealed in gold ingsing over 17 times from the suspect examination protocol prepared by the prosecutor on March 13, 1972 as shown in the annexed list.

(6) Next, Defendant 18’s statement is health. The suspect interrogation protocol against Defendant 18 of March 2, 1972, which was prepared by the Prosecutor of March 2, 1972, stated that the Defendant 18 was closely imported in sight of gold tamp and tamp over seven times, but only three documents consistent with the attached list and two attached documents are written, and one statement is made to the effect that the tamp and tamp are not consistent, and 10 statements are made in the suspect interrogation protocol prepared by the Prosecutor of March 13, 1972, according to memory and memory (in the indictment, 12 documents in which Defendant 18 was involved).

(7) Finally, Defendant 21’s statement is health. The same suspect also made the first statement on February 24, 1972 and the suspect examination record prepared on February 25, 1972, Defendant 14, who purchased from the same person on August 25, 1971, 20 Hong Kong Switzerland’s Switzerland’s Switzerland’s Switzerland’s Switzerland’s ice on August 20, 1971 from the same person on September 1, 1971, 50 and 100 to 100 to 105 to 30 to 10 to 105 to 197 to 10 to 30 to 15 to 197 to 10 to 10 to 30 to 10 to 10 to 4 to 197 to 197 to 15 to 197 to 20 to 30 to 197 to 14 to 197 to 10 to 1 to 15 to 1 to 27.2.

In light of the above facts, it is difficult for the prosecutor to make a reasonable and objective proviso on February 22, 1972 to recognize the crime of this case. In this case where the defendants' statements to be stated almost the same as the indictment in the last suspect examination protocol against the defendants preparing the prosecutor, regardless of whether they are not voluntary statements as alleged by the adviser or prosecutor, and there is little doubt as to whether they are true or not, and as such, there is no other statement in accordance with the leading question of the prosecutor. Further, there is no difference between the defendant 17 and the defendant 17 without the help of the record (it is apparent in the record that the defendant 17 made statements without any help of the record) and the defendant 17 are not sufficient to see that there is no sufficient evidence to see the remaining portion of the facts charged by the prosecutor as evidence for 37 months from the beginning of October 1969 to the first day of December 12, 1972. It is difficult to see that the remaining part of the defendant's statement of guilt and 17 times from the prosecutor's evidence.

2. We examine the prosecutor's judgment of the court below which affected the judgment by erroneous application of law.

(A) The prosecutor asserts that the court below applied the provision on attempted crimes to the applicable provisions in criminal facts in regard to the crime committed by Defendant 2, 3, 4, and 5 at the original time. However, upon examining the written judgment in detail, the court below may apply Article 6(6) of the Aggravated Punishment Act and Article 132(2) of the Customs Act to the so-called 1,2 as to the above Defendants, so-called 1,2 at the original time. However, although the above Aggravated Punishment Act and Article 132(2) of the Customs Act apply only to the attempted crimes of the original time, it appears that the above Aggravated Punishment Act and Article 6(6) of the Aggravated Punishment Act and Article 132(2) of the Aggravated Punishment Act apply only to the two attempted crimes at the original time, it is without merit.

(B) The prosecutor argues that the court below erred in the interpretation of Article 194 of the Customs Act with regard to Defendant 2, 3, 4, and 5, thereby causing concurrent crimes and affected the judgment by discretionary mitigation of Defendant 1 and 5. However, Article 194(3) of the Customs Act with regard to which "the provisions of paragraph (2) of the preceding Article are to be punished by imprisonment, except in a case where it is punishable by imprisonment" is obvious to the court of this Court that "the provisions of paragraph (2) of the preceding Article are printed erroneously (the above mistake can be easily discovered in light of Article 1976(2) of the Official Gazette of the Issuance on November 29, 1969 (the Act No. 4310(2) of the Publication on November 29, 1969). (However, the judgment of the court below against some Defendants by erroneous interpretation of Article 194 of the Customs Act and affecting the judgment by imposing a fine equivalent to two times the cost of the goods."

3. We examine the prosecutor's judgment of the court below as to the allegation that there was an error of omission of adjudication.

(A) In light of the Prosecutor’s arguments (court records 742) stated in the instant indictment, the prosecution as to Defendant 1 by the Prosecutor can be acknowledged as having been prosecuted. The lower court, on the erroneous premise that the prosecution by the Prosecutor was prosecuted for attempted charge due to mistake, and sentenced not guilty, which affected the conclusion of the judgment because it did not judge whether a request for trial was made, and thus, cannot be exempted from reversal.

(B) The following facts are not determined as to the main facts charged against Defendant 9, and there was an error in the judgment of the court below that did not judge the request for a trial on the acquisition of customs stolens, which are the main facts charged, and even if not, according to the records of the case, there is sufficient evidence to acknowledge the fact of the main facts charged against Defendant 9, which is the main facts charged. The court below's judgment on the grounds of the prosecutor's appeal that there is no evidence to find the facts guilty as to the main facts charged because the court below misleads the defendant 9 of the fact, which is the main facts charged. In other words, there is no way to directly determine that there is no evidence to acknowledge the main facts charged, and there is no way to dismiss the main facts charged for indirect use by recognizing the main facts charged against Defendant 9. Thus, the court below's determination on the facts charged as to the main facts charged against Defendant 9 without mentioning it as to the main facts charged, and there is no evidence to find the facts charged as to which the court below did not have any evidence to find the facts charged.

4. The grounds for appeal by Defendant 12 who is erroneous of facts in the judgment of the court below and the grounds for appeal by Defendant 13, the defense counsel of Defendant 13 who is erroneous of facts in the judgment of the court below, or there is a misapprehension of the legal principles, the first appeal by Defendant 4, the second case, and the second case, the examination of the evidence duly examined by the court below based on the records, it is sufficient to acknowledge each crime against the Defendants in the original case, and it cannot be found that there was a mistake of legal application

5. As to the prosecutor's assertion that the amount of the sentence imposed by the court below against the defendants 10, 11, 12, and 13 is unreasonable because the amount of the sentence imposed by the court below against the defendants 10, 11, 12, and 13 is too uneasible, and that the amount of the sentence imposed by the defendant 12 and the defendant 13's attorney's defense counsel is unreasonable because the amount of the sentence imposed by the court below against the above defendants is too uneasible. In light of the records,

6. The defendant's defense counsel's grounds for appeal against the same defendant 8 and 9, where the court below's sentencing is unfair, are health in light of the records. If the court below's determination of the sentence against the defendant 8 and 9 is examined in light of the records, it can be recognized that the amount of the sentence imposed against the defendant 8 and 9 is unreasonable because it is unreasonable.

7. The judgment of the court below against Defendant 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 is public health. According to Article 6 (4), (5), and (6) of the Aggravated Punishment Act, among crimes of Article 181 (b) of the Aggravated Punishment Act, Article 182 of the Aggravated Punishment Act can be seen as having been sealed in accordance with Article 6 (5) of the Aggravated Punishment Act or a fine equivalent to two times the cost of the goods intended to be sealed can be deemed to have been concurrently imposed on the defendant 2, 3, 4, 6, and 9 of the Aggravated Punishment Act; Article 60 of the Aggravated Punishment Act provides for the aggravated Punishment Act; Article 194 (5) of the Aggravated Punishment Act provides 194 of the Aggravated Punishment Act; Article 182 of the Aggravated Punishment Act provides 90 of the Aggravated Punishment Act provides 70 of the Aggravated Punishment Act; Article 53 of the Aggravated Punishment Act provides 97 of the Aggravated Punishment Act provides for the Aggravated Punishment Act.2 of the Aggravated Punishment Act.

(4) More than a prosecutor’s appeal against Defendant 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, and 21 and each appeal against Defendant 12, and 13 against Defendant 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, and 21 are without merit, and each of them is dismissed pursuant to Article 365(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the part concerning Defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 among the judgment below is not exempt from reversal. Accordingly, it is reversed pursuant to Article 364(6) or (2) of

The criminal facts acknowledged as to Defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 by a member of a union are identical to the above facts of the judgment of the court below if the member excludes Defendant 1 from the facts of the crime newly acknowledged by the latter against Defendant 1, and the evidence relation is identical to the above corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court below in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act, except for the part of "the statement of the fact of fact of fact investigation prepared by the judicial police officer of January 1, 200" from among the summary of the above evidence in the reasoning of the judgment below, "each appraisal report prepared by Nonindicted 14, 15, and 16 of the staff of the Busan Customs Office who was investigated by the party member

Criminal facts against Defendant 1

Defendant 1, at around 16:00 on February 21, 1972, at the time of entry into the port of Busan after starting only a substitute for the handling gun of Chinese nationality, and without reporting to the head of the Busan Customs Office at the time of entry into the port of Busan, for the purpose of smuggling, Defendant 1, at the time of entry into the port of Busan, failed to achieve the purport that: (a) 3,000 grassium, 50 grasium, 1,07 grasium 3,07 grasium, 20 grasium, 20 grasium, gold grasium, 20 grasium, 24 grasium, 24 grasium, 10 grasium, 48 glusium, and 48 glusium, the price at 292,274 grasium, 962,600 won.

Law No. 500

피고인 1의 원판시 제2의 밀수미수의 점과 당원 판시 밀수예비의 점은 각 특가법 제6조 4항 2호 , 동 6항 , 관세법 제182조 2항 에, 피고인 2, 3, 4, 5의 판시 제1의 밀수의 점은 특가법 제6조 4항 2호 , 동 피고인들의 판시 제2의밀수기수의 점은 특가법 제6조 6항 , 동 4항 2호 , 관세법 제182조 2항 에, 피고인 6, 7의 판시 제3의 밀수의 방조의 점은 특가법 제6조 6항 , 동 4항 2호 , 관세법 제182조 1항 에, 피고인 8, 9의 판시 각 관세장물취득의점은 각 관세법 제186조 1항 에, 각 해당하므로 피고인들에 대한 이상 각 소위에 대하여 소정형중에서 각 징역형을 선택하고, 피고인 4에 대하여는 판시 모두의 전과가 있으므로 형법 제35조 에 의하여 형법의 범위내로 누범가중을 하고, 피고인 1, 2, 3, 4, 5의 판시 각 소위는 형법 제37조 전단 의 경합범이므로 동법 제38조 1항 2호 , 동법 50조 에 의하여, 피고인 1에 대하여는 그 죄질과 범정이 중한 판시 밀수입미수죄에 정한형에, 피고인 2, 3, 4, 5에 대하여는 그 범정이 무거운 판시 제1의 밀수입죄에 정한형에, 동법 제42조 단행범위내로 각 경합범 가중을 하고, 피고인 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7의 이건 범행에는 그 정상에 참작의 여지가 있으므로 동법 제53조 , 동법 제55조 1항 3호 에 의하여 각 작량감경을 한 형기 범위내에서 피고인 1을 징역 3년에, 피고인 2, 3을 각 징역 4년에, 피고인 4, 5, 6, 7을 각 징역 2년 6월에, 피고인 8을 징역 1년 6월에, 피고인 9를 징역 1년에 각 처하고, 피고인 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7에 대하여는 특가법 제6조 5항 에 의하여 피고인들이 밀수입하고, 밀수입하려 하였고, 밀수입하는데 방조한 물품원가의 2배에 상당하는 금원인, 피고인 1, 6, 7에 대하여 각 벌금 6,201,780원을, 피고인 2, 3, 4, 5에 대하여 각 벌금 14,330,640원을 각 병과하고, 형법 제69조 2항 , 동법 제70조 에 의하여 피고인 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7이 위 벌금을 납입하지 아니할 경우에는 금 30,000원을 1일로 환산한 기간 피고인들을 노역장에 유치하기로 하고 피고인 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9에 대하여 동법 제57조 에 의하여 원심판결선고전 구금일수 중 150일씩을 피고인들에 대한 위 징역형에 각 산입하기로 하고, 피고인 6, 7, 8의 이건 범행에는 그 정상에 참작의 여지가 있으므로 동법 제62조 1항 에 의하여 이 판결 확정일로부터 각 4년간씩 위 징역형의 집행을 각 유예하고, 압수된 메모지 2장(증제5호)은 범죄행위에 제공한 물건으로 피고인 이외의 자의 소유에 속하지 아니하므로 형법 제48조 1항 1호 에 의하여 압수된 녹용 20포(증제11호), 해구환(증제12호), 금쇄고정환 20개(증제13호), 송죽진주고 48개(증제14호), 육신환 10개(증제15호), 섬유 48개(증제16호), 만금유 2개(증제17호), 가방 3개(증제18호), 양탄자 1장(증제19호), 열쇠 1개(증제20호)는 피고인의 이건 범행에 제공한 물건으로 피고인 1의 소유이므로 관세법 제182조 2항 에 의하여 이를 각 피고인 1로부터, 압수된 라도 남자용 손목시계 2개(증제21호), 로렉스 18금 남자용 손목시계 1개(증제22호), 로렉스시계 보증서 10장(증제23호), 시계줄 40조(증제24호), 양탄자 6장(증제25호), 양복지 3벌(증제26호), 로렉스시계 보증서 1장(증제53호)은 피고인들의 이건 범행에 제공된 물건으로 피고인 2가 점유하고 있으므로 관세법 제181조 에 의하여 이를 같은 피고인으로부터, 압수된 고무줄 1개(증제1호), 하라막기 1개(증제2호)는 이건 범행에 제공된 물건으로 범인 이외의 자의 소유에 속하지 아니하므로 형법 제48조 1항 1호 에 의하여 피고인 4로부터, 압수된 한국은행 500원권 40장(증제41호)은 이건 범행에 제공된 물건으로서 범인 이외의 자의 소유에 속하지 아니하므로 형법 제48조 1항 1호 에 의하여 동 선박(해운호) 1대(증제62호)은 이건 범행에 제공된 물건이므로 관세법 제184조 에 의하여 이를 각 피고인 6으로부터, 압수된 다이야몬드 6부짜리 6개(증제43호), 다이야몬드 1캬랏트 25부짜리 3개(증제45호), 다이야게이지 0.20짜리 1개(증제46호), 다이야게이지 0.57짜리 1개(증제47호), 다이야게이지 0.05짜리 300개(증제48호)는 관세 장물로서 범인이 소유하는 물건이므로, 관세법 제186조 에 의하여 피고인 8로부터 압수된 손목시계 9개(증제28호), 손목시계 3개(증제29호)는 관세장물로서 범인이 소유하는 물건이므로 관세법 제186조 에 의하여 압수된 메모지 2장(증제30호)은 이건 범행에 제공된 물건으로 범인 이외의 자에 속하지 아니하므로 형법 제48조 1항 1호 에 의하여 이들을 각 피고인 9로부터 각 몰수하고 피고인 2, 3, 4, 5의 판시 제1의 범행과 피고인 9의 판시 제4의 범행에 의하여 피고인들이 밀수입하고 또는 취득한 시계는 관세법 제181조 1항 , 동법 제186조 에 의하여 이를 몰수하여야 할 것이나 압수된 시계 12개(증제28,29호) 이외에는 이를 타에 처분하여 몰수할 수가 없으므로 관세법 제198조 1항 에 의하여 나머지 물건에 대한 범칙 당시의 국내 도매물가에 상당한 금원인 금 9,354,000원을 같은 피고인들로부터, 피고인 1, 2, 3, 4, 5가 판시 제2의 범행에 의하여 밀수입하려고 한 물건은 관세법 제182조 2항 , 동법 제181조 에 의하여 이를 몰수하여야 할 것이나, 압수된 라도 남자용 시계 2개, 로렉스 18금 남자용 손목시계 1개, 로렉스 보증서 10장, 에니카 시계줄 40짝, 양탄자 6장, 양복지 3벌(증제21 내지 26호)을 제외한 물건은 피고인들이 이를 바다속에 버려 이를 몰수할 수가 없으므로 관세법 제198조 1항 에 의하여 범칙 당시의 국내 도매가격에 상당한 금원인 금 6,875,000원을 같은 피고인들로부터 각 추징하기로 한다.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Man-Operation (Presiding Judge)