Cases of recognizing omissions that have not followed customs procedures without identifying the unloading of goods on which customs duties are imposed as crimes of evading customs duties.

The decision that the omission, which did not take the customs procedure, enters the port of entry into the factory line after having entered the port of registry in a foreign country, constitutes a crime of evading customs duties is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principle of the crime of evading customs duties.

Article 198(1) of the Customs Act

Prosecutor

Defendant

The first instance court's net support, the second instance Gwangju High Court, etc.

ex officio, the offense of evading customs duties under Article 198 (1) of the SPP is established only when taxable goods are immediately landed without undergoing customs clearance in order to collect customs duties. According to the original judgment, the defendant, as the captain of the 1st gold-free ship belonging to the Taei Industrial Co., Ltd., Taeyang Industrial Co., Ltd., on board the same line between February 4, 1958 and April 12, 1958, completed the export of the 3rd-out ship at the same time, and then returned from the lower court at that time, he did not obtain the 7,960,636 refund of the cost of the cosmetic, etc. at the same time, and returned to the port at that time, and returned to the port, but without undergoing customs clearance procedures at that time, he did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the 1st customs clearance of the goods, and thus, the judgment below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the 1st customs clearance of the goods at issue.

Justices Kim Young-chul (Presiding Justice)