A. Whether an exemption from import permission by deceiving as if it were a gift certificate product constitutes “the import permission obtained by deception or other unlawful means” under Article 33 subparag. 1 of the Trading Business Act

(b) the meaning of “false declaration” under Article 188 subparag. 1 of the Customs Act;

A. The confirmation of whether the goods are carried in for the purpose of inheritance is based on the authority delegated by the head of the customs office to the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy, which shall be deemed to be different from the import license under Article 137 of the Customs Act. Thus, Article 33 Subparag. 1 of the Trade Business Act punishs “a person who has obtained export or import license” by actively engaging in fraud or other unlawful acts, and it is reasonable to interpret that it does not fall under the case of exemption from import license as above.

(b) “False declaration” under Article 188 subparag. 1 of the Customs Act includes not only false entry in the declaration but also false entry in the document attached at the time of declaration;

(a) Article 33 subparagraph 1 and Article 6 (1) of the Trade Business Act; Article 188 subparagraph 1 of the Customs Act;

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 83No5376 delivered on June 5, 1984

The part of the judgment of the court below on the violation of the Customs Act against the defendant shall be reversed and the case shall be remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Criminal Court.

The prosecutor's remaining appeals are dismissed.

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the judgment below, with respect to the violation of the Trade Act from among the facts charged, the court below affirmed the judgment of the first instance court which acquitted the defendant on the grounds that it did not constitute a crime or lack proof of a crime, and found the defendant not guilty on the grounds that it did not constitute a crime under Article 14 subparagraph 1 of the Special Provision, Article 14 of the same Act, Article 48 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 18 (1) of the same Act, which provides that the import license of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy by a deceptive method anticipated in Article 33 subparagraph 1 and Article 6 (1) of the Trade Act is limited to floating revenue, and that the import license of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy by the method in which the defendant reported the import from the head of each customs office is not recognized, but constitutes a false declaration of Article 17 subparagraph 1 of the Customs Act, and that the declaration of the first instance court did not constitute a crime under Article 8 (1) of the same Act, and that the report of the first instance court did not constitute a false declaration of Article 17 subparagraph 8 of the above.

1. Ground of appeal No. 1 (Violation of Trade Business Act)

Article 33 subparag. 1 of the Trade Act provides that "a person who has obtained permission for import under Article 6 of the Act on Trade Business shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than three years or by a fine not exceeding five million won, and that "a person who has obtained permission for import under Article 6 of the Act on Trade Business" shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than three years or by a fine not exceeding five million won, and that with respect to goods which are brought in for the purpose of evidence, the head of customs office confirms that the reason for receipt of the certificate is reasonable and recognized (Article 24(4)18 of the Regulations on Delegation and Entrustment of Administrative Authority and Article 46 subparag. 33 of the Enforcement Decree of the Trade Business Act) pursuant to Article 14(Special Cases on Export and Import) 1 of the Trade Business Act, and the court below determined that permission for import or approval is not required by the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy under Article 6 of the Act on Trade Business (Special Cases on Export and Import).

However, in the case of this case, the core of this case is whether the defendant is deemed to be a person who has obtained export or import permission by deceit or other wrongful means under Article 33 subparagraph 1 of the Trade Business Act, on the same basis as the import permission. The confirmation of whether the goods are imported for the purpose of receipt is based on the authority delegated by the head of the customs office to him, which is different from the import license under Article 137 of the Customs Act. In the case of this case, it would be the exemption of import permission by deceiving the goods as a receipt, and eventually, Article 3 subparagraph 1 of the Trade Act would punish the "person who has obtained export or import permission" by actively fraudulent or other unlawful means. It is reasonable to interpret that "the exemption of import permission" does not fall under the case of "the person who has obtained import permission" as a receipt, and it is reasonable to adopt the prosecutor's theory to actively interpret it, and it is not reasonable to discuss this.

2. Ground of appeal No. 2 (Violation of Customs Act)

Article 188 subparagraph 1 of the Customs Act provides that "any person who falsely files a declaration on important matters in filing a declaration under Article 137 (License for Export, Import, or Return)" shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two million won. Article 137 (11) of the same Act provides that when he/she intends to export, import, or return goods, he/she shall file a declaration with the head of the relevant customs office and obtain a license. Article 139 (Documents to be Submitted at the declaration) of the same Act provides that "when he/she files an export, import, or return a declaration under Article 137 of the same Act, he/she shall submit documents other than taxation data prescribed in Article 9-2 of the same Act and submits documents prescribed by the Presidential Decree other than those for which he/she files a declaration under Article 123-2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Customs Act; Article 139 of the same Act provides that "any person who files a false declaration on the import or import declaration of the relevant goods shall be accompanied by a false declaration under Article 138 (36) of the Customs Act.

Therefore, in this case, it is reasonable to see that it is a document to be submitted in accordance with Article 139 of the Customs Act, Article 123-2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Customs Act, Article 5 subparagraph 5 of the Rules on the Handling of Customs Clearance Affairs, etc., which states that it is reasonable to recognize that the statement of reasons such as this case is to be attached at the time of import declaration, and documents to be attached to the investigation records of this case, the bill of lading No. 32 of the Customs Act, the bill of lading No. 1, and other documents submitted and confirmed. Thus, this part of the case (violation of the Customs Act) has legal principles as to the time when the original facts under Article 188 subparagraph 1 of the Customs Act are falsely reported to the court below, and it affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, it is reversed and remanded

Therefore, it is dismissed that the violation of the Trade Act is dismissed, and the violation of the Customs Act is reversed and remanded. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)