(영문) 대법원 2019.6.13. 선고 2017도13283 판결

The non-guilty part of the judgment below is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Central District Court.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In order to import goods, the Customs Act prescribes that the name, size, quantity, and price of the relevant goods and other matters prescribed by Presidential Decree shall be declared to the head of the relevant customs office (Article 241(1)). A person who files a false declaration on the matters under Article 241(1) at the time of filing an import declaration shall be punished for committing a false declaration under Article 276(2)4 (Article 276(1) of the former Customs Act (amended by Act No. 12027, Aug. 13, 2013).

2. On the following grounds, the lower court affirmed the first instance judgment that acquitted the Defendants of the primary charges on each violation of the Customs Act.

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged

(1) Defendant A

If it is intended to import goods, the name, size, quantity and price of the relevant goods and other matters prescribed by Presidential Decree shall be reported to the head of the relevant customs office and shall not file a declaration or file a false declaration

Nevertheless, on April 30, 2013, when the Defendant reported to the head of the Incheon Airport customs office a number of WTMEN 3,7770, WOEN TPP 3,770 to G, the Defendant falsely reported the actual price of the goods to the head of the Incheon Airport 1.7 U.S. dollars 3.44, from that time to October 5, 2015, the Defendant reported 47 times in total the price of the clothing 252,008 (the actual cost of the goods, the amount of KRW 1,354,076,063, the amount of KRW 1,35,817,193 (hereinafter referred to as “the instant clothing”).

(2) Defendant B

The above defendant A, a representative director of the defendant, committed an act in violation of the Customs Act in relation to the defendant's business.

B. Determination

The court below found the defendants not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that it is difficult to conclude that the defendants filed a false declaration on the purchase price of the goods of this case, which is the basis of determining the dutiable value (Article 30 of the Customs Act), rather than on the basis of the import declaration under Article 241 (1) of the Customs Act, on the premise that the "price of the goods stipulated as one of the items of import declaration," is the actual market price that is the basis of determining the dutiable value (Article 30 of the Customs Act), i.e. the purchase price that has been actually paid or is to be paid by the purchaser (hereinafter referred to as the "purchase price").

3. However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

A. According to the reasoning of the first instance judgment maintained by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, the following facts are revealed.

(1) The Defendants purchased raw materials such as atomics from the original seller in the U.S. (hereinafter “U.S.”) and supplied them to F free of charge. The Defendants took a way to directly transport them to F in the U.S. companies, etc. instead of re-exporting them to Korea.

(2) The Defendants imported the instant clothing, which is a finished product manufactured by F processing materials such as raw materials, and entered “the name of the imported goods” in the import declaration as the basis of a finished product of clothing, and further entered “the goods” in the transaction classification column as “the goods after commission process” instead of “the goods after commission process.”

(3) However, in the "unit price and amount of the imported goods in the import declaration concerned" column, the Defendants stated only the processing cost, not the cost of the finished goods but the cost of the finished goods.

B. Examining the above facts in light of the aforementioned provisions and relevant legal principles, since goods, which were the subject of import declaration by the Defendants, should be deemed as goods manufactured with clothes rather than processed services, it is reasonable to view that the purchase price of the instant clothing, which is the price of the instant clothing, includes the price of the raw materials, which constituted the finished goods through the processing instead of the processing. Thus, even if the Defendants were to import the instant clothing, which is the finished goods, but reported only at the processing price rather than the price of the finished goods that is the finished goods, the price of the finished goods, which is the element of the raw materials, including the cost of the raw materials, was falsely reported, and constitutes Article 276(2)4 of the Customs Act.

C. Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to "price of goods" subject to import declaration under Article 241(1) of the Customs Act without failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which led to the failure of the court below to render a not-guilty verdict on the above facts charged.

D. Meanwhile, Supreme Court Decision 2013Do8382 Decided July 14, 2016 cited by the lower court is not appropriate to have different issues invoked in the case.

4. Therefore, the non-guilty part of the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, and it is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.