Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Freeboard Kim-ok (prosecutions) and a trial on transfer;

Attorney Hong Man-man

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Da3733 Decided January 23, 2014

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

1) Violation of the Customs Act

The Defendants, in accordance with the garment Export Business’s practice, entrusted all of the affairs such as transportation of goods and export declaration for export to ○○ Trade (Representative Nonindicted Party) as an export agent. Since ○○ Trade was acting on behalf of the Defendants, there was no intention in violation of the Customs Act to the Defendants.

2) The violation of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act

Since the defendants received the export price directly from △△△ trade, which is the party to the transaction, the party to the transaction, it was erroneous in the judgment below that the defendants received the export price in full from ○○ trade, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Unreasonable sentencing

The sentence of the lower court (Defendant 1: 2 years of suspended sentence, suspended sentence of additional collection, Defendant 2 Company: fine of KRW 50 million, suspended sentence of additional collection) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

The Defendants asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal at the court below, and the court below found the Defendants guilty of violating the Customs Act and violating the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act by explaining the judgment. In light of the records comparing the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misunderstanding legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

In addition to the judgment of the court below, Defendant 1, in relation to the fact of the violation of the Customs Act, declared by the investigative agency that Defendant 2 had the authority file an export declaration under the name of Defendant 2, on the ground that there was a concern that the export declaration would be disclosed at all without filing an export declaration, on the part of the export agency commissioned to ○○ Trade Co., Ltd., for which Defendant 1 had the authority file an export declaration. In light of this point and the details of the export declaration as to the ○○ Trade Co., Ltd., Defendant 1 knew that the export declaration was not filed with Defendant 2 Co., Ltd.,

B. Determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing

In full view of the following facts: (a) the value of the exported goods without any lawful export declaration on the instant owner of the export goods exceeds 5.4 billion won; (b) payment made between a person who is not a party to the export transaction without filing a declaration exceeds 5.5 billion won; and (c) the payment made between a person who is not a party to the instant export transaction without filing a declaration exceeds 5.5 billion won; and (d) the court below, considering the degree of the profits the Defendants acquired, has suspended the imposition of an additional collection on the instant violation of the Customs Act; (c) there is no special circumstance or change in circumstances to be newly considered in sentencing after the judgment of the court below; and (d) other conditions of sentencing

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendants' appeal is without merit and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Judge)