Cases where there are errors in violation of the provisions of Article 29 of the Court Organization Act concerning the jurisdiction of things.

According to this case's indictment, the prosecutor stated the applicable provisions of Articles 198-3 (2) and 198 (1) of the former Customs Act to the criminal facts of the preliminary criminal facts of the violation of customs duties in this case. According to Article 198 of the same Act, the statutory punishment for the crime in this case is one year to ten years, or a fine equivalent to two to ten times the evaded tax amount. Thus, according to Article 29 (1) 3 of the former Customs Act, it is clear that the defendant's case belongs to the jurisdiction of the collegiate panel of the district court under Article 29 (1) 3 of the same Act.

Court Organization Act Article 29 (1) 3

Defendant 1 and two others

A co-inspector;

Busan District Court Decision 68Da397 delivered on May 8, 1968

The original judgment and the first instance judgment shall be reversed.

The case shall be transferred to Busan District Court Panel Division.

The first ground for appeal by the prosecutor of Busan District Prosecutors' Office is examined.

According to this soar, the prosecutor entered the applicable provisions of Articles 198-3(3) and 198(1) of the former Customs Act to the facts constituting the crime of evading customs duties. According to Article 198 of the same Act, the statutory punishment for the crime of this case is a fine of not less than one year and not more than ten years, or a fine of not less than two to not more than ten times the evaded amount of tax (the same statutory punishment is applicable under Articles 182(2) and 180(1) of the amended Customs Act). Thus, the defendant case belongs to the jurisdiction of the collegiate panel of the district court under Article 25(1)3 of the Court Organization Act. Nevertheless, despite the fact that the court of first instance tried and judged by a single judge, despite the violation of the provisions of Article 29 of the Court Organization Act concerning the jurisdiction of objects, the court below's judgment and the judgment of the court of first instance cannot be held unlawful.

Therefore, according to Articles 390 and 394 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the judgment of the first and second instances is reversed, and it is decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Na-dong, Ka-dong, and Lee Jong-young