(a)the existence of a criminal intent of evading customs duties, in case where such a customs duty rate is applied as the phrases indicating half-finished goods are added to finished goods for import licensing or customs convenience;

B. The meaning of “a person who has obtained permission for import by deception or other unlawful act” under Article 33 subparag. 1 of the Trading Business Act

A. In importing the instant non-susus steel coin, the Defendant entered the product into an import document as “the susatum steel coin for the purpose of import licensing or customs convenience without knowing that it was an item approved as an importer.” The phrase “the susatum steel coin for the purpose of retension” was not satisfied in the documents submitted by relevant agencies, such as customs, and the phrase “the susatum steel coin” and “the susatum coin for the purpose of retension” indicating the semi-finished goods were written together, but the contradictory phrase “the susatum steel coin” and “the susatum coin for the purpose of retension” were written, but the application of the susatum tariff rate was not found due to any mistake or negligence in performing the duties of the official in charge of import certification of foreign banks and customs house crew members, etc., and if the Defendant was merely

B. The term “person who has obtained permission for import by deception or other unlawful act” under Article 33 subparag. 1 of the Trading Business Act refers to a person who has obtained permission for import by means of a deceptive scheme or other act which is considered unfair by social norms, even though it is not possible to obtain permission for import by way of normal procedure. Thus, even if permission for import was obtained by marking an semi-finished product with the intention to obtain permission for import by misleading knowledge of items to be restricted or prohibited by import, it shall not be considered as a case where permission for import was obtained

(a) Article 6 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 15 of the Customs Act;

Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor

Attorney Lee Lee-soo

Seoul High Court Decision 83No2103 delivered on December 28, 1983

All appeals are dismissed.

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

In light of the records, the lower court’s determination that Defendant 1 was not guilty of the facts charged on the 7th anniversary of the fact that he had been found to have been unable to obtain an import declaration for the following reasons: (a) the number of semi-finished goods for which he had been found to have been unable to obtain an import declaration for the following reasons: (b) the fact that he had been found to have been unable to obtain an import declaration for the first time on the 4th half of the imported goods by stating that he had been found to have been unable to obtain an import declaration for the following reasons: (c) the import declaration for the first time on the 7th half of the imported goods by stating that he had been found to have been unable to obtain an import declaration for the first time on the 4th half of the imported goods; and (d) the import declaration for the first time on the 7th import declaration for the first time on the 197th import declaration for the first time and then the import declaration for the first time on the 1st half of the imported goods was not in conformity with the Presidential Decree.

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

Justices Kim Jung-soo (Presiding Justice) and Lee Jong-young's Lee Jong-young