In the case of concurrent crimes of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes committed on the grounds of evasion of customs duties, whether the amount of the fine shall be calculated for each crime.

Where a fine is to be imposed on a licensed customs broker, the provisions of Article 38(1)2 of the Criminal Act shall be excluded pursuant to Article 194(1) of the Customs Act, and the provisions of the same Customs Act shall also apply even in cases where the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is applied on the grounds of the evasion of customs duties. As such, in cases of concurrent crimes committed on the grounds of a evasion of customs duties, the amount of fine for each crime shall be added up after calculating the amount of fine.

Article 194(1) of the Customs Act, Article 6(3) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and Article 38(1)2 of the Criminal Act

Defendant 1 and 12 others

Prosecutor and Defendants

Seoul Criminal District Court (80 Gohap697)

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 shall be reversed.

Defendant 1 and 2 shall be punished by imprisonment for 6 years and by a fine of 256,00,000 won, by imprisonment for 3 years and 101,50,000 won and fine of 101,50,000 won, by imprisonment for 3 years and 101,50,000 won and fine of 101,50,000 won, Defendant 5 shall be punished by imprisonment for 5 years and 191,20,000 won, Defendant 6 shall be punished by imprisonment for 2 years and 101,50,000 won and fine of 195,00,000 won, respectively.

In the event that the above Defendants did not pay the above fines, each amount of KRW 300,000 is converted into one day, the Defendants shall be confined in each Labor House for the period of converting the amount into one day.

Of the detention days before the sentence of the original judgment, 105 days shall be added to each of the above imprisonment days, and 110 days for the defendant 2, 3, 4, and 7, and 110 days shall be added to each of the above imprisonment years.

However, with respect to Defendant 4, the execution of the above imprisonment shall be suspended for five years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Defendant 1 and 2: (a) KRW 173,721,00 in money from Defendant 3; (b) KRW 139,221,00 in money from Defendant 4 and 6; (c) KRW 196,98,00 in money from Defendant 5; and (d) KRW 170,590,00 in money from Defendant 7, respectively.

All appeals filed by the defendants 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 and each appeal filed by the prosecutor against the above defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of each ground for appeal;

A. The summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant 1 and the defense counsel is as follows: first, the defendant did not engage in the act of smuggling such as the time of original judgment, and there was no fact that he participated in the solicitation of smuggling or provided funds, but there was a fact that part of the funds for the purchase of Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa, but the court below found the defendant guilty. Second, the judgment of the court below against the defendant

B. The summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendants 2 and 3 and the defense counsel of the above defendants is as follows: First, the defendants did not commit any crime such as the time of original judgment; however, the court below found all the defendants guilty on the basis of the prosecutor confession of the above defendants and the remaining defendants without any arbitriness; the judgment of the court below erred in violation of the rules of evidence and erroneous facts; second, the amount of the punishment imposed by the court below against each of the above defendants is too unreasonable;

C. The gist of Defendant 4’s defense counsel’s appeal is as follows: first, Defendant 4 did not commit a crime at the time of original adjudication; however, Defendant 4 was guilty due to a mistake of evidence by the court below; second, the court below erred in misunderstanding of facts that affected the judgment; second, the judgment of the court below against Defendant 4 is too unreasonable; and

D. The summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendants 5 and 6 as well as the defense counsel of the above defendants is as follows: First, each of the above defendants has no criminal facts such as the facts at the time of original adjudication; but the court below convicted each defendant on the basis of the prosecutor confession who made a false confession due to adviser. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in misunderstanding facts against the rules of evidence; second, the amount of punishment imposed by the court below on each of the above defendants is too unreasonable;

E. The summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant 7 and the defense counsel is as follows: first, the defendant did not have engaged in the smuggling or smuggling in collusion with the above defendants; however, the defendant 1, who was well known to the court below, was the lending of small ships and introduced the non-indicted 1 to the defendant for the lending of the small ship to the non-indicted 1, thereby allowing the defendant to borrow the ship on two occasions from the non-indicted 1. The court below found the defendant guilty only with the false prosecutor confession by the adviser of the above defendants, including the defendant, but also calculated the market price by the presumption appraisal by the customs staff who did not have any evidence without any evidence, even in calculating the market price for green products, by calculating the market price. Second, the court below erred in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence, and the judgment of the court below against the rules of evidence; second, the sentence against the defendant 7 is too inappropriate; second, the judgment of the court below

F. The summary of Defendant 8’s defense counsel and the defendant 8’s appeal brief was based on a false confession that is not voluntary, and the defendant 8 did not provide any information or funds to be sealed by Japan. However, the defendant 1 and the defendant 2 introduced the defendant 9 to a melter upon the request of the defendant 1 and the non-indicted 2. The defendant 1 and the defendant 1 did not have any 15 knife, but the mers 500 knife with the 7 knife with the 7 knife with the knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's k's.

G. The gist of Defendant 10’s appeal is as follows: first, the Defendant purchased the Defendant’s instant green paper with no knowledge of a customs package, and the lower court convicted the Defendant; second, the lower court erred in misunderstanding of facts; second, the lower court’s determination of the sentence against Defendant 10 is too unreasonable; and

H. The summary of the grounds of appeal by Defendant 9 is as follows: First, the Defendant purchased or kept the Defendant’s melted with the Defendant’s melted with the Defendant, but the lower court convicted the Defendant, and calculated the Defendant’s 2 million won per the melted with the Defendant’s market price, and the lower court calculated the amount of KRW 3,750,000 per official, which was erroneous in the misapprehension of facts affecting the conclusion of the judgment; second, the amount of the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable; and

I. The summary of Defendant 12's appeal is as follows: first, the defendant was a person who was sentenced to punishment in the outer village of the defendant 8, and the goods were transported from Busan to the Mesphere in the heart of the Dong, and the defendant was guilty; second, there was an error of misconception of facts affecting the conclusion of the judgment; second, the judgment of the court below is too unreasonable because the amount of punishment imposed by the court below against the defendant is too large.

(j) The gist of Defendant 11’s appeal is as follows: (a) the green use purchased by Defendant 9 was two; (b) the lower court mistakenly recognized Defendant 4; and (c) the lower court erred by misunderstanding of facts that affected the conclusion of the judgment; (b) the lower court’s determination of the sentence against the Defendant was too unreasonable; and

(k) The summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant 13 is as follows: First, although the defendant was the head of the head of the 9masan mountain head, from February 6, 1980, the defendant was departing from Japan, the defendant was not involved in the crime of the above defendants who exported the Mesa-mine or exported the Mesa-mine. However, since the defendant was not a adviser, he was found guilty of the defendant on the basis of the non-voluntary confession. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts against the rules of evidence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the decision of the court below is too unreasonable.

Other. The gist of the grounds for appeal against each of the Defendants by the prosecutor is that the judgment of the court below against each of the Defendants is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. Therefore, first of all, we examine the argument of mistake of facts as to each of the above defendants' interrogation protocol prepared by the court below as evidence, and since the defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 9, 12, 11, and 13 as to each of the above defendants' interrogation protocol prepared by the court below as evidence acknowledged the voluntariness of their authenticity and statement in each court below, the defendant 5 and 7 acknowledged the authenticity of each defendant's interrogation protocol prepared by the prosecutor as to each of the defendant's interrogation protocol prepared by the prosecutor, and there is no ground to suspect that the confession of the prosecutor's interrogation protocol prepared by the prosecutor is not voluntary statement in the record, but there is no error of law in the adoption of the prosecutor's interrogation protocol prepared by the prosecutor as evidence, and all of these evidences duly examined and adopted by the court below including these evidence cannot be accepted as evidence, and there is no error in the misapprehension of facts as to each of the defendants' principal facts, and it cannot be accepted.

B. Examining the grounds for appeal against each of the above defendants 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 and the grounds for appeal against the prosecutor against the above defendants, examining in detail the aforementioned defendants' motive, means, results, the defendants' age, character and conduct, environment, criminal records, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the court below's sentence against the above defendants is inappropriate even if considering the circumstances asserted by the above defendants or the prosecutor, and it is not considered that the sentence against the above defendants is too heavy or unreasonable.

Therefore, all appeals filed by Defendant 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 and appeals filed by the prosecutor against the said Defendants are without merit. Accordingly, they are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

C. We examine the following facts ex officio. According to the judgment of the court below, each of the so-called violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes against Defendants 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, the court below set the amount of fine as a sentence by Defendant within the scope of the amount calculated by adding up 5 to 10 times the amount of the evaded tax, which serves as the basis for calculating the amount of the attached Table for each of the crimes, without setting the amount of fine according to the method, method, and result of each of the crimes committed by Defendants.

However, according to Article 194(1) of the Customs Act, where a fine is imposed on a person who commits an act contrary to the penal provisions of the same Act, the application of the provisions of Article 38(1)2 of the Criminal Act shall be excluded. In the case of applying the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes for the reason of the evasion of customs duties, the above provisions are applied, and Article 6(3) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides that a person who has evaded customs duties in excess of a certain amount shall be concurrently punished by a fine equivalent to not less than five times but not more than ten times the value of goods or the amount of evaded customs duties. In the case of concurrent crimes of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes for the grounds of the evasion of customs duties, the sentence of a fine is excluded in the case of the imposition of a fine for each crime, and thus, the amount of fine shall be calculated by adding the value of goods or evaded taxes for each crime.

Therefore, the court below calculated a fine against each of the above defendants due to a mistake in the interpretation of the above provision, and thereby affected the judgment. Therefore, the judgment of the court below against the above defendants shall not be reversed.

Therefore, with respect to Defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, the prosecutor or the Defendants’ respective grounds for appeal on unfair sentencing are omitted. The judgment of the court below is reversed under Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the members of the party are again decided after pleading.

The respective facts of the crime against Defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 recognized as a party member and the summary of each evidence are as shown in the corresponding column of the judgment below. Therefore, all these facts are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

피고인들의 판시 각 소위중 피고인 1, 2, 3, 4, 6의 판시 제1의 가, 제2, 피고인 7의 판시 제3의 각 관세포탈의 점과 피고인 5의 판시 제1의 나의 관세포탈방조의 점은 각 행위시법에 의하면 1980. 12. 18. 법률 제3280호로 개정되기 전의 특정범죄가중처벌등에 관한 법률(1966. 2. 23. 법률 제1744호) 제6조 제2항 제1호 , 관세법 제180조 제1항 혹은 제6조 제6항 , 제2항 제1호 , 관세법 제182조 제1항 , 제180조 제1항 에, 재판시법에 의하면 위 개정된 특정범죄가중처벌등에 관한 법률(이하 특가법이라 한다) 제6조 제2항 제2호 , 관세법 제180조 제1항 혹은 제6조 제6항 , 제2항 제2호 , 관세법 제182조 제1항 , 제180조 제1항 에 각 해당하는데 이는 모두 범죄후 법률의 변경에 의하여 형이 변경된 경우이므로 형법 제8조 본문, 제1조 제2항 , 부칙 제2조, 형법 제50조 에 의하여 형이 가벼운 재판시법인 특가법 제6조 제2항 제2호 , 관세법 제180조 제1항 , 형법 제30조 혹은 특가법 제6조 제6항 , 제2항 제2호 , 관세법 제182조 제1항 , 제180조 제1항 , 형법 제32조 제1항 에 의하여 각 처단하기로 하고, 피고인 1, 2, 7의 판시 제4의 가 관세포탈의 점은 각 특가법 제6조 제2항 제1호 , 관세법 제180조 제1항 , 형법 제30조 에, 피고인 5의 판시 제4의 나 관세포탈방조의 점은 특가법 제6조 제6항 , 제2항 제1호 , 관세법 제182조 제1항 , 제180조 제1항 , 형법 제32조 제1항 에, 피고인 1, 2, 3의 각 메스암페타민 수출의 점은 각 향정신성의약품관리법부칙 제4항, 동 부칙 제2항에 의하여 폐지된 습관성의약품관리법(1970. 8. 7. 제정 법률 제2230호, 이하 습관성의약품관리법이라 한다) 제38조 제1항 제1호 , 제3조 제1항 , 제2조 제1항 제3호 , 형법 제30조 에 각 해당하는바, 각 그 소정형중 판시 특가법 제6조 제2항 제1호 위반죄와 판시 습관성의약품관리법위반죄에 대하여는 유기징역형을 각 선택한 후, 판시 각 특가법위반죄에 대하여는 특가법 제6조 제3항 에 의하여 벌금형을 병과하기로 하고, 피고인들에 대한 위 각 죄들은 피고인별로 형법 제37조 전단의 경합범이므로 형법 제38조 제1항 제2호 , 제3호 , 제50조 , 관세법 제194조 제3항 에 의하여 징역형에 한하여 피고인 1, 2, 7, 5에 대하여는 형이 가장 무거운 판시 제4의 가, 혹은 나의 특가법위반죄의 정한 형에, 피고인 3에 대하여는 형이 가장 무거운 판시 제9, 습관성의약품관리법위반죄의 정한 형에, 피고인 4, 6에 대하여는 범정이 무거운 판시 제2의 특가법위반죄의 정한 형에, 각 경합범가중을 하되, 피고인 1은 관세범으로서는 초범으로 잘못을 깊이 뉘우치고 있고, 피고인 2는 1966년 이후로는 이 건이 초범이며, 피고인 3은 초범이고, 피고인 4는 잘못을 깊이 뉘우치고 있으며 범행에 가담하게 된 경위 및 정도에, 피고인 5는 범행가담 정도(방조)에, 피고인 6에게는 범행가담 정도 및 경위에, 피고인 7은 1967년 이후로는 이 건이 초범이며, 장기간 공직원으로서 공로를 세운 점등 각 그 정상에 참작할 만한 사유가 있으므로 각 형법 제53조 , 제55조 제1항 제3호 , 관세법 제194조 제3항 에 의하여 징역형에 한하여 작량감경을 한 다음 각 소정형기와 별표기재의 각 피고인별 산정근거란 기재 각 금액 범위내에서 피고인 1, 2를 각 징역6년, 피고인 3을 징역 3년 6월, 피고인 4를 징역 3년, 피고인 5, 7을 각 징역 5년, 피고인 6을 징역 2년 6월과 위 피고인들에 대하여는 별표기재와 같은 각 피고인의 각 범죄별 벌금액을 따로 병과할 것이나, 다만 주문에서는 피고인별로 합산한 금액을 선고하기로 하고, 형법 제70조 , 제69조 제2항 에 의하여 피고인들이 위 벌금을 납입하지 아니하는 경우 각 금 300,000원을 1일로 환산한 기간 피고인들을 각 노역장에 유치하며, 형법 제57조 에 의하여 원심판결선고전 구금일수중 피고인 1, 5, 6에 대하여는 105일씩을, 나머지 피고인들에 대하여는 110일씩을 위 각 징역형에 산입하며, 다만 피고인 4에게는 앞에서 본 정상에 참작할 만한 사유가 있으므로 형법 제62조 제1항 , 제51조 에 의하여 이 판결확정일로부터 5년간 위 징역형의 집행을 유예하고, 판시 각 관세포탈품중 압수된 녹용 150그람을 제외한 나머지 물품은 피고인들이 소유 또는 점유하는 판시 각 특가법위반죄의 범칙물품들이므로 각 관세법 제180조 제1항 후단에 의하여 이를 해당 피고인들로부터 각 몰수하여야 할 것이나 이미 처분되어 몰수할 수 없으므로 각 관세법 제198조 제1항 에 의하여 범칙당시의 국내도매가격에 상당하는 금액을 추징하기로 하고, 습관성의약품인 판시 메스암페타민 15키로그람은 피고인 1, 2, 3이 판시 제9의 습관성의약품관리법위반죄에 제공한 것이므로 습관성의약품관리법 제42조 제1항 에 의하여 동 피고인들로부터 이를 몰수하여야 할 것이니 이미 처분되어 몰수할 수 없으므로 같은항 후단에 의하여 그 가액을 추징하기로 하여 피고인 1, 2로부터 각 금 308,571,000원을, 피고인 3으로부터 금 173,721,000원을, 피고인 4, 6으로부터 각 금 139,221,000원을, 피고인 5로부터 금 196,998,000원을, 피고인 7로부터 금 170,590,000원을 각 추징하기로 한다.

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

Judge final (Presiding Judge) Kim Jong-dae et al.