Definitions of imported goods under Article 181 of the Customs Act

Article 181(a) of the Customs Act provides that an act of evading customs duties on imported goods except for goods, the import of which is prohibited by other Acts, shall be deemed to refer to goods, the ownership of which is legally acquired. Thus, an article that evades customs duties shall be deemed to mean goods that have been lawfully acquired but are evaded customs duties of the Customs Office. Therefore, the thief shall not be treated as a thief in violation of the Customs Act, since the lawful acquisition of ownership is not recognized for stolen goods, etc. by a stolen person.

Article 181 of the Customs Act

Defendant 1 and one other

Seoul District Court Incheon District Court (71 High Gohap81)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant 1 and 2 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months.

The number of days of detention in the court below prior to sentencing shall be 50 days each of the above punishment against the Defendants.

However, the execution of each of the above punishment against the Defendants shall be suspended for three years after the judgment became final and conclusive.

The seized evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (18 air conditioners, 26 air conditioners, 1 air conditioners, 1 air conditioners, 1 air conditioners, 25 air conditioners) shall be returned to the victim’s 202 transport unit.

The gist of the defendants' grounds for appeal is that the court below found the defendants guilty by applying Article 181 of the Customs Act and Article 6 (4) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, although the facts charged against the defendants recognized by the court below are not a violation of the Customs Act, the court below erred in law that affected the conclusion of the judgment due to erroneous application of the law. Second, the defendants committed the facts charged in collusion with the defendants 1 and the non-indicted 2. The court below found the defendants guilty of the facts charged in this case on the basis of the forged invoice without admissibility. The court below erred in the misapprehension of facts against the rules of evidence, which affected the judgment. The third point of the grounds for appeal by the defendants 1, 3, and 4 is that the defendant 1's defense counsel's third point of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant 1 attempted another person's crime at the request of another person, and it is unfair that the court below's sentence against the defendant is too unreasonable.

First of all, I will examine the argument on the violation of law in the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, at around 15:40 on April 23, 1971, the defendant et al. found the defendant et al. guilty of the charged crime that he could evade customs duties amounting to 2,946,655 won (or 11,032,00 won at the market price), such as 2,946,655 won (or 11,000 won) in common with the defendant et al., the defendant et al., and 2,946,65 won (or 15:40 on April 23, 1971) in the U.S. military unit, X-X (P, X) located in the U.S.-si in Incheon City, the defendant et al., for foreign goods, and Article 6 (4) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 181 of the Customs Act apply to this.

I think, it is necessary to regulate without customs duties the act of evading customs duties on imported goods except for goods, the import of which is prohibited by other laws, and the term "imported goods" means goods, the ownership of which is acquired lawfully. Thus, the goods that evade customs duties should be deemed to mean goods that have evaded customs duties, the ownership of which is lawfully acquired on imported goods but which are prohibited by the Customs Act.

Therefore, since it is impossible to recognize the lawful acquisition of ownership by the stolen person as to stolen goods, even if the goods are foreign goods, it shall not be argued as a violation of the Customs Act even if they were to be a stolen act. In this case, in full view of the statements of the witness's name in the trial and the statements of the defendants and the defendant non-indicted 1 in the court below, the defendants and the non-indicted 1 can recognize the fact that the defendants and the non-indicted 1 carried out the above goods in the EXS (P/X) warehouse located in Incheon, using the invoice. Accordingly, the court below found the defendants guilty of the violation of the Customs Act as to the defendants, and there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment in violation of the law, and therefore the judgment of the court below is not necessary to determine the remaining grounds for appeal.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the members are again decided.

The judgment on the grounds of appeal that the charge of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes against the Defendants is not a crime. However, the prosecutor added the special larceny crime to the ancillary charge in the trial, and the party member found guilty of this ancillary charge as determined later. As such, the first charge is not separately pronounced.

(Criminal Facts)

Defendant 1 and 2 jointly with the above defendant 1 and the non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 2 were loaded and transported goods, and Defendant 2 was in charge of the work of care and custody at the loading and transportation, and the defendant 2 was in charge of the work of care and custody on April 23, 1971, which was at around 15:40 on April 23, 1971, the air conditioners owned by the United States in the EXE (P/X) warehouse, and the 18 unit air conditioners owned by the United States, 26 unit, 5 unit television 1 unit, 1 unit, 1 unit, 1 unit, 25 unit 11,032,00 unit market price.

(Abstract of Evidence)

The facts of the judgment, as the case may be, shall be

1. Statement to the effect that the Defendants’ part of the facts stated in the trial court is consistent with

1. Statement to the effect that it conforms to the facts stated in the trial court of Nonindicted 5’s witness

1. Each statement in the trial records of the court below to the effect that it conforms to the facts set forth by the Defendants and Defendant 1

1. Each statement that conforms to the facts indicated in the judgment among the interrogation documents concerning the Defendants and the Nonindicted Party 1, as to the preparation of the prosecutor

1. The facts in the judgment are sufficient to prove the existence of 18 air conditioners, 18 air conditioners, 26 air conditioners, 1 television programmes, 1 electric axiss, 25 air conditioners, and 25 air conditioners (Evidence 1 to 6).

(Application of Acts and subordinate statutes)

In light of the law, the defendants' judgment below falls under Article 331 (2) and (1) of the Criminal Act, and therefore, they should be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than one year and six months, and 50 days from the number of days of detention before sentencing of the court below in accordance with Article 57 of the same Act shall be included in the above punishment of the defendants. The above defendants committed the crime of this case as a primary offender and committed a mistake in depth, and there is a reason to take into account the circumstances of the crime. Thus, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for 3 years from the date the judgment becomes final and conclusive under Article 62 of the same Act, and the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for 18, 18, 26, 26, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 25 (transport evidence 1 through 6) shall be returned to the victim under Article 32 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

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

Judges Kim Yong-chul (Presiding Justice) Kim Yong-woon only