1. Cases for which a collection cannot be made pursuant to Article 198 (1) of the Customs Act; and

2. A case where it is deemed that the goods are not stolen; and

1. In a case where a sentence of forfeiture of the article from "B" received from the defendant who received the goods of the customs evasion from "A", the article cannot be viewed as an article that cannot be confiscated under Article 198 (1) of the Customs Act, and therefore, the collection of the article cannot be ordered against the defendant.

2. If a female married international marriage enters the Republic of Korea, who received a marriage gift from her husband, and borrowed money from the Defendant as a security, and then repaid the borrowed money and received a return of the Ban, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant is still the head of the duty evasion until miscellaneous and returned.

Articles 198 and 186 of the Customs Act

Defendant 1 and 23 others

Defendant and Prosecutor (Defendant 1 and 15 others)

Seoul District Court Decision 74 High Court Decision 632,649,692,722, 74 high-672)

1. Of the part of the judgment below's conviction and acquittal, the part as to the defendant 1's transfer of 320,000 won of the domestic wholesale price of Damond piece 8Kalet portion to Co-defendant 2 on December 1973, with the knowledge that the defendant was a stolen in violation of the Customs Act;

Defendant 3 and 4's convictions, Defendant 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22 shall be reversed.

2. Defendants 1, 4, 5 and 8 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for each year, and 6 and 9 by imprisonment for each year and six months, respectively, and by imprisonment for each year and six months, Defendant 3, 7, 11, and 17, and Defendant 2, 15, 16, and 22 by imprisonment for each period of ten months, respectively.

3. Of the detention days prior to the sentence of the lower judgment, 60 days for the defendant 1, 2, 4, 5, and 11; 60 days for each of the defendant 6 and 7; 65 days for the defendant 8; 80 days for the defendant 9; 160 days for the defendant 3; 55 days for the defendant 15; 25 days for the defendant 17; 45 days for the defendant 22; and each of the above sentence for the defendant, etc. shall be included.

4.However, from the date of the final and conclusive judgment, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for two years from the date of the final and conclusive judgment in respect of the defendants 2, 4, 5, 7, 11, 15, 16, 17, and 22.

5. The items listed in the attached Form 1 list that have been seized shall be confiscated from the accused mentioned therein;

6. Each money listed in the separate sheet No. 2 shall be collected from the defendant stated therein.

7. As regards Defendant 10, 13, 14, 19, and 21, the pronouncement of each sentence shall be suspended (as regards Defendant 19, the confiscation portion shall be excluded).

8. Of the facts charged, Defendant 12, 18, and 20, Defendant 11 received a request from Co-Defendant 9 to sell one Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Pin-Pin-Pin-Pin-Pin-Pin-Pin-Pin-Pin-Pin-Pin-Pin-Pin-Pin-Pin-Pin-K (a) from Co-Defendant 1, 1974 that he was aware of the fact that he sold it to Co-Defendant 12; and (b) Defendant 15 knowingly purchased it as security.

9. All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the defendant 23 and 24, appeals against the names of both the defendant and the defendant 3 and 4, and appeals against the remaining parts of the defendant 1 (the part of the defendant's acquittal is not a crime among the parts of the defendant's acquittal, and the part of the defendant's acquittal is confirmed under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and excluding the part thereof) shall be dismissed.

1. (1) The gist of the prosecutor's appeal Nos. 1 is that the prosecutor's first point of the judgment of the court below against the defendant 1, 3, 4, and 23 is an error in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and the decision of the court below is based on the consistent confessions made by the defendant et al. to the court below, and the evidence adopted by the court below through lawful examination of evidence, although the court below could have recognized the facts charged as to each of the non-guilty charges, the court below found the non-guilty charges on the part of the non-guilty charges. The gist of the second point of the judgment of the court below is that the non-guilty charges against the defendant's second point of the judgment of the court below against the law on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and the court below prosecuted the defendant's second point of the second point as to the defendant's second point of the appeal, and judged only the conjunctive charges in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, 3, 2, 3, 14, 12, 15, 27, 14, 127

(2) According to the summary of each appeal by Defendants 12, 14-2, 13, 15, 16, and 19-2, the summary of each appeal by Defendants 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 17, 21, 22, 23, and 24, the gist of each appeal by the defense counsel is as follows; the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the facts of each appeal by Defendants 1, 2, 3, 8, and 9-2, and the summary of each appeal by the defense counsel; the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the facts and the facts of each appeal by Defendants 2, 3, and 9-2, and the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the facts and the facts of each appeal by Defendants 2, 3, and 9-2, and the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to each of the evidence.

2. (1) First, among the first point of appeal against the prosecutor's defendant 1, it is sufficient to recognize the facts charged on the part of defendant 1, in light of the prosecutor's statement and the fact that the defendant, among the first point of appeal against the prosecutor's defendant 1 on December 1973, 197, transferred 3.20,00 won of Damond piece 80,000 won, imported as a Damond piece 80,00 won to the above defendant 2 on bail in the money and valuables located in Jongno-gu, Jongno-gu, Seoul. In light of the facts charged by the rules of evidence, each protocol of examination of the prosecutor's preparation of the suspect's protocol against the defendant 1 and 2, and each statement of the trial records of the court below, Defendant 1 consistently led the prosecutor's office to the point of appeal, and Defendant 2 also made a statement consistent with this, and it is sufficient to acknowledge the facts charged on the part of the defendant 1, taking account of the two defendants' statements and the fact inquiry of the preparation of the Commissioner.

(2) Next, in light of the records, the following facts are examined as to Defendant 1’s remaining innocent part, Defendant 3, 4, and 23’s violation of the rules of evidence, or mistake of facts as to the acquittal part of the judgment of the court below. In light of the records, it is sufficient to recognize the reason for the original part of the judgment that found Defendant 1 not guilty as to each of the facts charged since there is no evidence to support each of the facts charged in this case. On the contrary, the prosecutor’s office cannot trust various evidences cited in order to find Defendant 1 guilty of each of the above facts charged, and there is no sufficient evidence to acknowledge each of the facts charged. Therefore, the argument above is not acceptable.

(3) We examine the following facts: Defendant 3, 5, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 20, with the exception of Defendant 3, 5, 12, 15, 17, 18, and 20, it is sufficient to acknowledge each criminal fact of the same Defendant, etc., taking into account the various evidences adopted by the court below through legitimate evidence investigation, the statements of the same Defendant, etc. in the trial process and the appraisal results of party members; Defendant 24 purchased 12 years before the date of this issue and again purchased 1972 as it was proved that he had no knowledge of the fact that he had sold 12 years before the date of this issue; Defendant 4 days before the date and time of this issue; Defendant 7 days before the date and time of this issue of Non-Indicted 1's testimony to the non-indicted 1's testimony to the non-indicted 3's testimony to the non-indicted 1's testimony to the non-indicted 2's testimony.

(4) 피고인 12의 채증법칙위배 내지 사실오인의 점에 관하여 살피건대, 원심은 동 피고인에 대한 범죄사실 즉, 피고인이 그 정을 알면서 (가) 1970.12월 일자미상경 피고인의 집에서 프랑스인 성명불상자로부터 밀수품인 다이아몬드 1개(증 제95호) 싯가 140만 원 상당의 선물로 받아 취득하고, (나) 1974.6.중순경 같은 곳에서 공동피고인 11로부터 밀수품인 진주반지 1개(증 제98호)를 금 60만 원에 매수하여 취득하였다는 범죄사실을 인정하는 증거로서 검사작성의 피고인 및 상피고인 11에 대한 각 피의자신문조사, 압수된 증 제95호, 증 제98호 관세청장작성의 사실조회회신 서울세관 소속 공소외 5 작성의 감정서를 들고 있는바 먼저 (가)의 범죄사실에 관하여 보건대 검사작성의 피고인에 대한 피의자신문조서를 보면, 피고인은 검찰에서 본건 문제의 다이아몬드반지를 그 공소내용과 같이 1970.12월경에 프랑스인으로부터 받은 것이라고 자백하고 있기는 하나 원심공판조서 및 당심에서의 진술을 보면, 피고인은 1970.12월경에 프랑스인으로부터 받은 선물은 본건 다이아몬드 반지가 아니고 화장품이며 본건 다이아몬드 반지는 1967.5.4일경 피고인의 남편이 경영하는 갈포회사의 거래선인 독일인 공소외 6으로부터 선물로 받은 것인데 검찰에서 심문을 받을 때에 당황하여 본건 반지와 블란서인으로부터 받은 화장품을 혼동하여 잘못 진술한 것이라고 변소하고 있다. 그런데 원심증인 공소외 7의 증언에 의하면 피고인의 남편이 경영하는 갈포회사의 거래선인 독일인 공소외 6은 1967.5.2. 입국하여 피고인의 남편이 경영하는 회사에서 일을 보고 동년 5.7. 출국하였는데 동년 5.4. 피고인의 남편이 그의 집에서 베푼 연회석상에서 독일인 공소외 6이 피고인에게 다이아몬드 1캐럿짜리 반지를 선물로 주는 것을 독견하였으며 1970.12월경에는 역시 위 회사거래선인 블란서인으로부터 피고인이 선물을 받은 것이 있는데 그때는 반지가 아니고 화장품류이였다고 진술하고 있고 기록에 매어진 외국인 출입국증명서 사본과 공소외 6이 보낸 전문을 보면 독일인 공소외 6이 1967.5.2. 입국하여 동년 5.7.에 출국한 것이 기록되어 있고 공소외 6이 1967.5.4. 피고인에게 다이아몬드 반지 1개를 선물로 주었다고 기재되어 있어 피고인의 위 변소에 꼭 들어맞고 있다. 이에 비추어 보면 피고인의 검찰에서의 자백은 잘못된 진술로서 믿을 수 없고, 관세청장작성의 사실조회회신과 공소외 5작성의 감정서만으로는 이점 공소사실을 인정하기에 부족하고 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없으며 도리어 피고인의 원심 및 당심에서의 진술과 그 진술에 꼭 들어맞는 위 증거에 의하면 본건 문제의 다이아몬드반지는 피고인이 1967.5.4. 독일인 공소외 6으로부터 받은 선물임이 명백할 뿐이다. 다음 (나)의 범죄사실에 관하여 보건대 공소외 5작성의 감정서에 의하면 본건 문제의 진주반지(증 제98호)가 외국산으로 기재되어 있고 관세청장작성의 사실조회회신에 의하면 외국산인 진주반지는 아직 정식통관한 사실이 없다는 취지의 기재가 있기는 하나 검사작성의 피고인에 대한 각 피의자신문조서 및 원심공판조서와 당심에서의 진술을 보면 피고인은 검찰이래 당심에 이르기까지 일관하여 본건 진주반지는 국산품으로서 관세포탈품이 아니라고 변소하고 있다. 그런데 검찰작성의 피고인 11에 대한 피의자신문조서 및 원심 및 당심에서의 피고인 11의 진술을 보면 피고인 11은 본건 진주반지는 국산품으로서 관세포탈물이 아니라고 피고인과 꼭 들어맞는 진술을 하고 있고 당심의 감정결과에 의하면 본건 문제의 진주반지는 국산품인 것으로 감정되어 있어 피고인의 변소에 부합되고 있다. 이에 비추어 보면 공소외 5작성의 감정서의 기재는 믿을 수 없고 달리 이점 공소사실을 인정하기에 족한 증거는 없고 도리어 피고인 및 피고인 11의 각 진술과 당심의 감정결과에 의하면 본건 진주반지는 국산품으로서 국내에서만 유통된 물건임이 명백할 뿐이다. 그럼에도 불구하고 원심이 위 증거를 들어 이점 각 공소사실을 유죄로 인정하였으니 원심판결은 채증법칙을 위배하여 사실을 오인한 위법이 있다하겠으니 이 점에서 피고인의 항소는 이유있다.

(5) As to the defendant 18's argument on the violation of the rules of evidence and the misconception of facts, which are the first point in the grounds for appeal by the defense counsel, the court below held that the defendant and the above defendant 9's each statement at the court below, each protocol of examination on the defendant and the above defendant 9, each protocol of examination on the preparation of the Commissioner of the Korea Customs Service, the protocol of fact-finding and the testimony of the non-indicted 5. When the defendant's statement at the court below and the court of the trial of the court below as to the prosecutor's protocol of examination on the defendant as to the prosecutor's protocol of examination on the defendant and the defendant's statement at the court of the court below and the trial of the non-indicted 5, which are consistent until the prosecutor's office's first time until the prosecutor's office's first day and the second day of the family head's first day, and the second day of the defendant's statement at the court below's first time and the second day of the defendant's statement at the court below's 9's first day and second day of the defendant's second day.

In full view of the statements made by the defendant and the above-mentioned defendant 9, it is recognized that the international marriage gift received from the husband of the foreign woman, and that the female temporarily returned to the prosecutor's office at the time when he asserted that he was his ownership and paid the principal and interest to the defendant as a security after 25 days from the date he paid the principal and interest to the defendant, and that the statement in the inquiry report made by the Commissioner of the Korea Customs Service and the statement in the appraisal report made by the non-indicted 5 cannot reverse the above recognition and there is no other data to decide on the above recognition.

In fact, the issue of whether the defendant's non-take of this case until the time of return cannot be seen as the stolen goods of the tariff evasion. Therefore, the remainder of the facts charged against the defendant on the premise that it is the stolen goods of the duty evasion is derived from the time when there is no evidence that does not require further consideration. Nevertheless, the court below accepted the facts charged against the defendant on the ground of the above evidence and found him guilty. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts contrary to the rules of evidence, and therefore, the defendant's appeal is justified.

(6) On the first ground for appeal of the defendant 20, the court below held that the defendant's non-indicted 1 was guilty. The defendant's non-indicted 4's non-indicted 8's non-indicted 5's statement was not the defendant's husband's non-indicted 8's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 4's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 6's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 4's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 4's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 6's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 6's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-

(7) As to Defendant 11’s ground of appeal No. 1, the first instance court accepted the charges of this case and convicted Defendant 11, although it is evident that Defendant 12 had arranged the sale and purchase of Defendant 12, as seen in the first half of the first half of the first half of the first half of the first half of the first half of the first half of the first half of the first half of the first half of the first half of the first half of the first half of the first half of the first half of the first half of the trial against Defendant 11, the first half of the first half of the first half of the first half of the trial against Defendant 1, and the first half of the first half of the first half of the first half of the trial (No. 98 of the first half of the first half of the first half of the year) was distributed only domestically as domestically, and the second half of the first half of

(8) Defendant 15's reasons for appeal are examined, first, as to the facts constituting the crime in (b) part of the first instance court's judgment against the Defendant, the court below acknowledged the facts constituting the crime in this point, and the court below acknowledged each suspect interrogation protocol prepared by the Defendant and the above defendant 3, each statement made by the court below and the court below and the court court of the first instance, and the fact inquiry reply prepared by the Commissioner of the Korea Customs Service, and the prosecutor's protocol prepared by the defendant. However, if the defendant's interrogation protocol prepared by the prosecutor as to the defendant as to the defendant, the defendant purchased one half of the half of the half of the half of the half of the fact at the original time and place, but the defendant purchased one of the half of the half of the fact at the court of the original instance as in the facts charged in this case at the court of the court below, it is sufficient to find that the defendant 3 consistent with the suspect's interrogation protocol prepared by the public prosecutor as to the defendant and the court of first instance to the prosecution of the first instance, and it is hard to find that there were no errors in the court below's finding otherwise.

(9) We examine the defendant 16's argument on the violation of the rules of evidence or the mistake of facts, which is the grounds for appeal by the defendant 16's attorney, first of all, about the criminal facts of the defendant's original trial (A) at the original trial, and all the evidences cited by the court below in order to acknowledge the criminal facts of this case are sufficient to acknowledge the criminal facts of this case, and it is sufficient to acknowledge the criminal facts of this defendant at the original trial of this case, and the defendant's testimony of the non-indicted 10 of the original trial witness at this time is not a secret item, but a half of this case's statement that the defendant was not aware of the fact, and it is a conflict with the defendant's testimony of the non-indicted 10 of the original trial witness at this time. In addition, it is not possible to believe that it is against the above evidence, and there is no other evidence that is insufficient to support the above recognition.

Then, the court below acknowledged the facts constituting the crime of this case (B) at Won-si, and cited the statement of the defendant, etc. at each protocol of examination of the suspect against the defendant 8 and 9 prepared by the public prosecutor, the fact inquiry meeting prepared by the Commissioner of the Korea Customs Service, and the appraisal statement prepared by non-indicted 5. As such, considering the evidence, it is clear that Damon World (No. 1) is not a domestic regularly imported product as a foreign country. Further, it is recognized that the defendant lent 1 million won to the above defendant 8 at the time and place at Won-si, and kept it as a collateral, but the court below's judgment did not have to find that the defendant's non-indicted 1's testimony and the fact-finding inquiry meeting conducted by the immigration control station as well as that of non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's remaining evidence.

(10) According to the court below's decision on the second ground of appeal by the defendant 9, 22, the defendant 9 was found to have purchased the goods from the defendant 2 at the home of the defendant at the original city on February 1974 by applying Article 186 (D) of the Customs Act, and the defendant again returned the amount equivalent to the value of the goods to the defendant 2 at the time of the purchase to the defendant 2 at the same time by applying Article 198 (2) of the same Act to the second ground of appeal by applying Article 186 (1) of the same Act, and by applying Article 198 (2) of the same Act to the second ground of appeal by the defendant 2 at the home of the defendant, he was aware that the goods can not be forfeited at this time, and by applying Article 198 (2) of the same Act to the second ground of appeal, he again returned the amount equivalent to the value of the goods at the time of the crime to the defendant 2 at the time of the purchase by the defendant 3 at this time.

In light of the above legal principles, the court below's decision against the defendant 9 is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles of Article 198 (1) of the Customs Act, which affected the application of the law. Therefore, the court below's decision that did not take the remaining grounds for appeal should not be reversed. Therefore, the defendant's appeal should be justified, and the court below's decision that ordered the confiscation of this case from the above defendant 23, which was returned to the defendant 9, cannot be deemed as a thing that cannot be confiscated under Article 198 (1) of the Customs Act. Nonetheless, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles of Article 198 (1) of the Customs Act since the defendant cannot be confiscated under Article 198 (1) of the Customs Act because it constitutes a case where the defendant cannot be confiscated under Article 198 (1) of the Customs Act, and the court below's decision that erred in the misapprehension of legal principles of Article 198 (1) of the Customs Act against the defendant is justified.

(11) In full view of the following circumstances: (a) Defendants 2, 4, 7, 21, 23, and 24’s grounds for appeal by each of the defense counsel; and (b) the prosecutor’s grounds for appeal by the defense counsel; and (c) the prosecutor’s grounds for appeal by the defendant 3; and (d) the prosecutor’s grounds for appeal by the defendant, etc., in light of the following: (a) the court below’s age, character and conduct, environment; (b) motive, means, and circumstances after the crime, etc. are considered to be the conditions for sentencing; (c) the determination of the sentence against the defendant 23,24 is inappropriate; but (d) the determination of the sentence against the remaining defendant, etc. is considered to be inappropriate by reason of the absence of reason for the appeal by the defendant 23,24, and the remaining defendant, etc. (as to the defendant 3, the conviction part)

(12) ex officio scambling;

(A) As to Defendant 5 and 17, the prosecution applied for changes in the indictment at the trial of the party and permitted each of the members to do so, the lower judgment against the said Defendants cannot be maintained by the punishment in this respect, and thus, the reversal shall not be exempted.

(B) Examining the judgment of the court below against Defendant 19, it is clear that each so-called the defendant's judgment falls under Articles 186 (1) and 180 (1) of the Customs Act, and the sentence of a fine of KRW 500,000,000,000, which is not imprisonment, was imposed upon each prescribed penalty.

If so, the judgment of the same defendant is contradictory to the reasons, so the remaining reasons for appeal are unnecessary, and the judgment of the same defendant cannot be reversed.

(C) Examining the judgment of the court below, Defendant 6, knowing that it was the stolen goods for which the customs duties were evaded at the original market of the defendant's original market, purchased 1, etc. of Jin-Sain-Sain-Sain-Sain-Sain-Sain-Sain-Sain-Sain-Sain-Sain-Sain-Sain-Sain-Sain-Sain-Sain-Sain-Sain-Sain-Sain-Sain-Sain-Sain-Sain-Sain-Sain-Sain-Sain-Sain-Sain-Sain-Sain-Sain-Sain-Sain-Sain-Sain-Sain-Sain-Sa-Sain-Sa-Sain-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sain-Sa-Sain-Sain-Sa-Sa.

Based on the above facts, No. 29 was sentenced from Defendant 23 to confiscate the No. 108 from Defendant 17, and these articles cannot be viewed as articles that cannot be confiscated under Article 198(1) of the Customs Act.

Nevertheless, the court below rendered a decision of additional collection to the defendant 6 and 8 on the ground that the above articles cannot be confiscated as provided in Paragraph (1) of the Customs Act, and thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles of Paragraph (1) of Article 198 of the Customs Act, which affected the application of Article 198 of the Customs Act. Thus, the appeal filed by the defendant et al. against the defendant et al. by the defendant et al. is justified. Thus, the appeal filed by the defendant et al. against the defendant et al. against the defendant 6 of the above defendant et al. should not be dismissed.

(D) Examining the lower court’s sentencing against Defendant 10, 13, and 14 in light of the following: (a) comprehensively considering the following circumstances, the lower court’s determination of each sentence against the said Defendant, etc. is deemed to be unfair because the amount of each sentence regarding the said Defendant, etc. is too inappropriate; (b) the prosecutor’s grounds for appeal against Defendant 10, and 14 do not seem to have been considered without merit (the result without merit) and the lower court’s judgment against the said Defendant, etc. cannot be reversed.

3. If so, among the appeals filed by Defendant 23 and 24 pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act and the prosecutor's acquittal portion against Defendant 1, the part concerning the defendant's purchase of at least 1,380,00 won of 3 Damond imported from his female from his house in Mapo-gu Seoul, Mapo-gu, Seoul (hereinafter omitted) on September 11, 1974, and the part concerning the defendant's 3 and 4, and the appeal filed against the defendant 23 and 24 are all dismissed. Pursuant to Article 364(6) of the same Act, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the decision of the court below is reversed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on December 1, 1973, on the part concerning the defendant's 2 and the part concerning the defendant's purchase of at least 1,380,000 won of Damond 14,216,17

(I) Summary of facts and evidence

Among the above defendants (the defendants, hereinafter the same shall apply), the facts constituting the above defendants 5, 12, 17, 18, and 20 other than the defendants 5, 17, 18, and 20 shall be added to the facts constituting the above defendants' original trial and the summary of the evidence as stated in paragraph (2) (1) below to the facts constituting the crime and the summary of the evidence as mentioned in paragraph (2) (1) above. The facts constituting the crime against the defendant 6 shall be used as mentioned in paragraph (3) below, and the summary of each evidence shall be deducted from the facts constituting the above defendants' (b) and the summary of each evidence from the original facts as stated in paragraph (1) above to the defendant 16-si (c) above, and the summary of each evidence shall be added to the statements prepared by the appraiser 12, 13 of each party member's original evidence as stated in paragraph (1) below, and the summary of each evidence and the summary thereof shall be cited as mentioned in paragraph (3) above (3) above.

1. Defendant 16, while being aware of the fact, was lent from the Defendant’s office on July 1974, 1974 to two Blufabbs (No. 6, 7) 600,000 won, which are duty-free goods of the same kind, at the Defendant’s office, and kept in custody with the Defendant’s security.

2. Criminal facts

(1) (C) Defendant 1 knowingly received 320,00 won and sold 320,000 won and delivered by Defendant 1 to Defendant 2 at the money and valuables on bail located in Jongno-ro, Seoul, Jongno-ro, 4, on bail, with the knowledge of the fact that Damond items and 80,000 won are identically imported to Defendant 2 at the same time;

(2) Defendant 5 is aware of the fact that he knew.

(A) From May 1, 1974 to September 1, 1974, 196 4 4 Doz. 38 Doz. (No. 168,185, 186, 187, 199) Doz. 41,500 Doz. (No. 168,185, 187, 199) Doz. were purchased from the first knisher in Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, to the first knisher in the same year;

(B) Between the first police officer of May of the same year and the first police officer of September of the same year, keep in custody the amount equivalent to KRW 579,500, 500 at the same place of customer’s name or fine box, etc. (Evidence Nos. 162 through 167, 169, 179 through 184, 189 through 191, 193, 194) as well as 17 kinds other than 17.

(C) keep in custody at the first time of September of the same year, after being commissioned to process the same Blufa 40 mar (No. 192, No. 192) by Dongman at the house of the defendant 1 on the Yongsan-gu, Yongsandong (hereinafter omitted).

(D) keep at the same place as 9.11 of the same year multiple 30 kind items (No. 195,196) on commission of sales in gold 165,000 won.

(3) Defendant 17 is aware of the fact that he was aware of

(A) on July 1973, at the office of the defendant, purchase and acquire at least 80,000,00 won a set of Damond 1, a flomond 1, a smuggling purchased by the defendant 13 from the above defendant 9;

(b)a 600,000 won by borrowing from a woman the same omond 30,000 won as a security at the same place in the same month, and keep it in custody at the same place;

(C)a brewing lot and a brewing lot, etc., from a woman in the same place in August of the same year, have been lent 3 million won as a security at the same place, and keep them in custody;

(D) On March 1974, 1974, she kept one of the same non-presidential wastes (No. 108) at the same place with the same market price of 164,000 won as a gift.

(Abstract of Evidence)

1. Each statement consistent with the facts set forth in the judgment of the political party and in the judgment of the court below, as well as the accused 2, 8, 9, and 13;

1. Each statement that conforms to the facts indicated in the judgment among the accused, etc. prepared by the public prosecutor and the accused accused 2, 8, 9, and 13;

1. Existing evidence of 168, 185, 186, 187, 199, 162 through 167, 169, 179, 184, 189 through 191, 193, 194, and 108; and

1. The fact described in the inquiry and reply made by the Commissioner of the Korea Customs Service;

1. Statement of the results of appraisal consistent with the domestic wholesale price at the time of offense of smuggling goods in each written appraisal of Nonindicted 5 written evidence prepared by the Seoul Customs Office on behalf of the head of Seoul Customs office; and

1. The facts in the judgment are sufficient to prove that all of the appraisal reports prepared by the party members, Nonindicted 12 and Nonindicted 13, based on their respective appraisal records consistent with the facts in the judgment.

3. Defendant 6 knowingly knows that:

(A) Between November 1, 1973 and January 1, 1974, Defendant 1, at the house of Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Seoul (hereinafter omitted), purchased 4 million won at the price determined by setting the amount equivalent to 1.6 million won at the price, including 1.6 million won at the Damond 10,000 won at the same place of his wife Nonindicted Party 14 and 10 times.

(B) On March 1974, 1974, at the residence of Non-Indicted 14, purchase and acquire the amount equivalent to 2,730,000 won at the market price of Jin-in-Ground (No. 29), including 1.2 million won at the market price of the non-indicted 14, the non-indicted 14, and 1 non-pin-pin-pin-pin-pin-pin-pin-pin-pin-pin-pin-pin-pin-pin-p

(C) At the beginning of July 1974, Nonindicted 14’s residence, Nonindicted 14: (a) Damond 20, 200, and 4 million won at the market price; (b) Damond 1, and (c) 3, 6, 5, 1, 1, 10, and 7,730,00 won at the price of the Damond 1, and the Damond 1, 6, 5, 1, 1, 10, and 70,000 won at the price of the Gamond 1, 1974.

(A) Application of the statute

피고인들의 판시소위중 피고인 9, 21, 동 박정자, 동 정욱을 제외한 나머지 피고인들의 각 관세법위반의 점은 관세법 제186조 제1항 , 제180조 제1항 에, 피고인 9의 판시소위중 부정수표단속법위반의 점은 부정수표단속법 제2조 제1항 에, 관세법위반의 점은 관세법 제186조 제1항 , 제180조 제1항 에, 피고인 3의 판시소위중 밀수품알선의 점은 동법 제186조 제1항 , 제180조 제1항 에, 밀수품알선미수의 점은 동법 제186조 제2항 , 제1항 , 제180조 제1항 에, 피고인 14의 판시소위는 동법 제186조 제2항 , 제1항 , 제180조 제1항 에, 피고인 21의 밀수품알선의 점은 동법 제186조 제1항 , 제180조 제1항 에 각 해당하는 바 소정형중 피고인 13, 19에 대하여는 각 벌금형을 선택하고, 나머지 피고인들에 대하여는 각 징역형을 선택하고, 피고인 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 15, 16, 17, 19, 동 이영원의 이상 각 수죄는 형법 제37조 전단 의 경합범이므로 위 피고인들중 피고인 19를 제외한 나머지 피고인들에 대하여는 동법 제38조 제1항 제2호 , 제50조 에 의하여 죄질과 범정 및 형이 가장 무거운 바에 따라 피고인 1에 대하여는 판시 제1의 (나)의 죄에, 피고인 5에 대하여는 판시 제2(가)의 죄에, 피고인 2에 대하여는 판시 제3(가)의 죄에, 피고인 6에 대하여는 판시 제9(다)의 죄에, 피고인 7에 대하여는 판시 제10(가)의 죄에, 피고인 8에 대하여는 판시 제11(다)의 죄에 피고인 9에 대하여는 판시 제12(아)의 죄에, 피고인 3에 대하여 판시 제14(라)의 죄에, 피고인 11에 대하여는 판시 제15(라)의 죄에, 피고인 4에 대하여는 판시 제17(나)의 죄에, 피고인 15에 대하여는 판시 제20(가)의 죄에, 피고인 16에 대하여는 판시 제21(가)의 죄에, 피고인 17에 대하여는 판시 제23(가)의 죄에, 각 경합범 가중하고, 피고인 19에 대하여는 관세법 제194조 제1항 에 의한 판시 각 물품원가의 2배를 합산하고 각 그 형기와 벌금범위내에서 피고인 1, 4, 5, 8을 징역 각 1년에, 피고인 6, 9를 징역 각 1년 6월에, 피고인 3, 7, 11, 17을 징역 각 10월에 피고인 2, 10, 14, 15, 16, 21, 22를 징역 각 8월에, 피고인 13을 벌금 20만 원에 피고인 19를 벌금 50만 원에 각 처하고, 형법 제70조 , 제69조 에 의하여 피고인 13, 19가 위 각 벌금을 납입하지 아니할 경우에는 금 1,000원을 1일로 환산한 기간 동 피고인등을 각 노역장에 유치하고, 동법 제57조 에 의하여 원심판결선고전의 구금일수중 피고인 3에 대하여는 160일을, 피고인 9에 대하여는 80일을, 피고인 6, 7에 대하여는 70일을, 피고인 8에 대하여는 65일을, 피고인 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 11, 14에 대하여는 60일씩을, 피고인 15에 대하여는 55일을, 피고인 22에 대하여는 45일을, 피고인 21에 대하여는 30일을, 피고인 17에 대하여는 25일을 위 징역형에, 피고인 13에 대하여는 60일을 위 벌금에 관한 환형유치기간에 삽입하고, 피고인 2, 4, 5, 7, 11, 15, 16, 17, 22는 본건 범행후 그 잘못을 깊이 뉘우치고 있는 점등 그 범죄의 정상에 참작할 만한 사유가 있으므로 동법 제62조 에 의하여 이 재판확정일로부터 2년간 위 형의 집행을 각 유예하고, 피고인들이 판시와 같이 취득하거나 알선 및 보관한 물건중 압수된 별지 제1목록 기재의 물건들은 같은 기재 피고인들이 각 소유 또는 점유하는 물품이므로 관세법 제186조 제1항 에 의하여 이를 각 몰수하고, 동 물건과 원심 공동피고인들로부터 몰수의 선고가 있은 물건이외의 물건은 몰수할 수 없으므로 동법 제198조 제1항 에 의하여 별지 제2목록 기재와 같이 몰수할 수 없는 각 물품의 범칙당시의 국내 도매가격에 상응한 금액을 같은 기재 피고인들로부터 각 추징하고, 피고인 10, 13, 14, 19, 21은 모두 전과없는 가정주부들로서 본건 각 범행후 그 잘못을 깊이 뉘우치고 있는 점등 개전의 정상이 현저하므로 형법 제59조 에 의하여 동 피고인들의 위 징역형 및 벌금형과 추징의 선고를 각 유예하기로 한다.

4. Judgment on the acquittal portion

(1) The prosecutor's office, as the primary claim against the defendant 6, has been accepted as 10 billion won or less, and the defendant is not guilty of 170,000 won or more, 170,000 won or more as well as 1750,000 won or more, and 170,000 won or more as it is found that there were 10,000 won or less as well as 10,000 won or less as 10,000 won or less, and 17,000 won or more as it is found that there were 10,000 won or less as well as 10,000 won or less as 10,000 won or more as 10,000 won or more as 10,000 won or more as 10,000 won or more as 7,00 won or more as 7,00 won or more as 14,000 won.

(2) Of the facts charged

(1) 피고인 12가 그 정을 알면서 (가) 1970.12월 일자불상경 피고인의 집에서 프랑스 성명불상자로부터 밀수품인 다이아몬드 1캐럿, 반지 1개, 싯가 금 140만 원 상당을 선물로 받아 취득하고 (나) 1974.6월 중순경 같은 곳에서 상피고인 11로부터 밀수품인 진주반지 1개를 금 60만 원에 매수하여 취득하였다는 점과 (2) 피고인 18이 1973.12월경 피고인의 집에서 별명 서국장부인, 상피고인 9, 노랑머리의 국제결혼한 성명미상여인들로부터 밀수품인 비치반지 1개를 그 정을 알면서 금 200만 원을 빌려주고 담보로 받아 보관하였다는 점에 관하여 살피건대 동 피고인 양명의 각 공소사실은 동 피고인들의 원심판결을 각 파기하는 이유에서 설시한 바와 같이 이를 각 인정할 만한 증거없으므로 형사소송법 제325조 후단에 따라 동 피고인등 양명에 대하여는 무죄를 선고하는 바이고, (3) 피고인 20에 대하여는 (가) 주위적 청구로서 동 피고인이 1974.5.6. 11:00경 서울 중구 남창동 51 하이볼다방에서 피해자 공소외 9로부터 다이아반지 1개의 판매위탁을 받은 피고인 4에 대하여 사실은 동 반지를 그날 중으로 팔아 대금을 주거나 만일 팔지못하면 그 반지를 반환해 줄 의사가 없음에도 불구하고 모 관광공사 사장부인으로 가장하면서 "오늘 오후 5시까지 다이아 3캐럿, 반지 1개를 대금 650만 원에 팔아 주겠다. 만일 위 시간까지 팔지 못하면 되돌려주겠다"는 등 거짓말로 동인을 속여 동인으로 하여금 그 취지로 믿게 하고 그 즉시 그 곳에서 동인으로부터 공소외 9 소유의 다이아 3캐럿반지 1개, 싯가 600만 원 상당을 교부받아 편취한 것이고, (나) 예비적 청구로서 1974.5.6 서울 중구 남창동 51 하이볼다방에서 상피고인 4로부터 공소외 9 소유의 다이아몬드 3캐럿, 반지 1개, 싯가 600만 원 상당을 3,4일내에 팔아 주던지 그렇지 않으면 돌려주겠다는 약속으로 위 반지를 교부받아 보관중 같은 달 9. 14:00경 같은 구 퇴계로 2가에 있는 프린스호텔안 먹돌다방에서 남편 공소외 8을 시켜 피고인 4에게 다이아몬드반지의 게약금 100만 원을 지급한 후 피고인 4로부터 이 반지의 반환을 요구받자 행방을 감추고 같은해 6.3. 13:00경 남대문경찰서 330수사대 사무실에서 위 반지를 장애련에게 보관시켰음에도 위 반지의 반환을 요구하는 피고인 4, 공소외 9에게 이를 분실하였다고 반환을 거부하여 위 다이아몬드반지 1개를 횡령하였다 함에 있으므로 살피건대, 본건 반지를 둘러싼 사실관계는 동 피고인의 원심판결 파기이유에서 본 바와 같이 피고인은 1974.5.6. 본건 반지의 소유자인 공소외 9의 대리인인 상피고인 4와 사이에 본건 반지를 대금 600만 원에 결과하여 매매계약을 체결하고 동 시경 이를 교부받고 같은달 9일 그 대금의 일부로 금 100만 원을 지급하였다가 잔대금을 지급하지 못하게 되어 동 시경 동 매매계약을 합의해제한 것이고 달리 이 사실을 좌우할 자료 없는바 사실이 이와 같을진대 피고인에게는 본건 다이아몬드반지를 편취할 기망의 의사도 없다할 것이요, 또한 본건 반지를 피고인이 피고인 4나 그 소유자인 공소외 9에게 반환되기까지는 특단의 사정이 엿보이지 아니한 본건에 있어서는 본건 문제의 반지는 피고인의 소유라 할 것이므로 피고인에게 본건 반지를 편취할 기망의 의사가 있었다거나 그 소유권이 없음을 전제로 한 주위적 청구나 예비적 청구의 공소사실은 이를 모두 인정할 증거없는 때에 해당하므로 형사소송법 제325조 후단에 의하여 무죄를 선고하는 것이고, (4) 피고인 11이 1974.6월 중순경, 상피고인 9로부터 관세법위반의 장물인 진주반지 1개를 팔아달라는 부탁을 받고 그때쯤 상피고인 12에게 그 정을 알면서 판매알선을 하였다는 점, (5) 피고인 15가 1974.1월 일자미상경 상피고인 3으로부터 관세법위반의 장물인 사파이어반지 1개를 그 정을 알면서 매수하였다는 점, (6) 피고인 16이 1964.6월경 외국인과 동거하는 공소외 1로부터 관세법위반의 장물인 다이아몬드 1캐럿 5푼 반지 1개를 그 정을 알면서 담보로 잡고 보관하였다는 점에 관하여 살피건대, 동 피고인 등 3명의 이점 각 공소사실에 대하여 동 피고인등 3명의 원심판결파기이유에서 본 바와 같이 이를 각 인정할 증거없으므로 형사소송법 제325조 후단 에 의하여 각 무죄를 선고하는 것이다.

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

[Attachment]

Judges Shin Jae-chul (Presiding Judge)