Whether or not a Korean court can collect the value of gold bars confiscated in Japan in accordance with Article 198 of the Customs Act.

If the gold bars of this case, which are customs-related goods, were confiscated in Japan and were deprived of their ownership, and thus the Korean court cannot confiscate them, it cannot be collected in accordance with Article 198 of the Customs Act.

Article 198 of the Customs Act

Supreme Court Decision 78Do831 delivered on April 10, 1979, 78Do830 delivered on April 10, 1979 (Supreme Court Decision 12130 delivered on June 27, 200, Supreme Court Decision 27Nu52 delivered on July 1, 200, Decision 198(1)240 delivered on August 19, 1980, Court Gazette 612 delivered on August 19, 1980, and 80Do1592 delivered on August 26, 198 (No. 226 delivered on summary of decision, Article 198(1) of the Customs Act, Court Gazette 642 delivered on July 131

Defendant

Busan District Court (79Gohap483)

Supreme Court Decision 80Do1592 Delivered on August 19, 1980

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor of one year and six months and by a fine of three thousand won.

When the above fine is not paid, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for a period calculated by converting 20,000 won into one day.

The number of detention days prior to the declaration of the original judgment shall be included in the above imprisonment.

except that the court shall suspend the execution of the above imprisonment for three years from the date this judgment becomes final.

The provisional payment of the amount equivalent to the above fine shall be ordered.

The first point of the grounds for appeal by the defendant's defense counsel is that the court below erred by misunderstanding facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the second point is that the sentencing of the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

In light of the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, there is sufficient evidence to find the facts of this case at the time of Japan's original trial. However, according to the court below's decision and its finding facts, the duty amount of this case which the defendant attempted to evade is KRW 1,329,152. The court below ruled that it is necessary to impose a fine of KRW 1,00,00 which is the range of five times to ten times the tax amount to be evaded by applying Article 6 (2) 2 and (3) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes. The above law was amended by Act No. 3280, Dec. 18, 1980, and it is reasonable to find that the defendant's remaining amount of customs duty at the time of this case's 6th trial can be collected at the same time as the above 10th trial court's decision did not constitute a confiscation rate of KRW 50,000,000,000,000.

The relationship between facts constituting an offense acknowledged by a member and the evidence thereof is the same as that of the court below, and they are cited as it is.

In light of the above legal principles, the first sentence of Article 182(2), the first sentence of Article 180(1), Article 30 of the Customs Act, the first sentence of Article 30 of the Criminal Act, the first sentence of Article 13(1), Article 182(2) and the first sentence of Article 180(1) of the Customs Act, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act are applicable to the cases where one act constitutes several crimes, and thus, the first sentence of Article 40 and Article 50(3) of the Criminal Act shall be subject to punishment provided for the violation of the Customs Act, with a heavier penalty than punishment under the first sentence of Article 187 of the Customs Act. The first sentence of Article 187 of the Customs Act shall be imposed concurrently with imprisonment, and the first sentence of Article 180(1) shall be imposed with prison labor for up to one year and six months, and the first sentence of Article 70 and the second sentence of Article 60(2) of the same Act shall be imposed with prison labor for up to seven years, and the first sentence of Article 70.

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

Judges Yoon Young (Presiding Judge) Lee (Presiding Judge)