The nature of the license for import under Article 137(1) of the Customs Act and the subject of the license.

The license of import under Article 137(1) of the Customs Act is a disposition that has the nature of the license to release the general place of revenue for the goods brought into the bonded area by the customs collector in the event of an import declaration, and the license is not effective for the goods entered in the import declaration or goods with the identity of them and without identity. Thus, the license is only established for other goods, and there is no room for establishing a false declaration under Article 188 of the Customs Act.

Articles 137(1), 181, and 188 of the Customs Act

Supreme Court Decision 83Do2193 delivered on December 13, 1983, 84Do565 delivered on July 24, 1984, and 86Do148 delivered on March 25, 1986

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Attorney Kim Yong-ju, Sick-si

Daegu High Court Decision 87No328 delivered on January 13, 1988

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding Defendant 1’s grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2, Defendant 2’s grounds of appeal Nos. 3, and Defendant 1 and 2 of the Defendants’ defense counsel’s grounds of appeal No. 1 and 2 (the grounds of appeal for supplementary appeal are submitted after the expiration of the statutory period, so it is judged to the extent of supplement in case of supplement of the grounds of appeal submitted within the statutory period). In light of the records, the court below’s determination of facts against the above Defendants is lawful and the measures of the court of first instance cited by the court below are lawful, and there are no grounds for the court below’s determination of facts due to the violation of the rules of evidence or the incomplete hearing, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to preliminary crimes as to customs law or there are no errors in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to preliminary crimes. As to the facts No. 1 of the judgment of the court below as to Defendant 1’s determination, it is just and there are no errors in the misapprehension of law.

2. As to Defendant 1’s grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 1, 2, and 3 of the grounds of appeal by Defendant 2, Defendant 2’s grounds of appeal by the Defendants’ attorney Kim Jong-ju, and the grounds of appeal by the Defendants’ counsel for the supplementary appeal by the defense counsel, and the grounds of appeal by additional supplement (if the grounds of appeal are supplemented within the scope of supplement), the license of revenues under Article 137(1) of the Customs Act is a disposition having the nature of permission to cancel the general import grade of the goods brought into the bonded area by the customs collector in the case of import declaration, and the license is a disposition having the nature of the general import grade of the goods brought in to the bonded area by the customs collector in the case of import declaration, and it does not affect the effect of the license (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 83Do2193, Dec. 13, 1983).

In light of the records, the secondhand parts of the Crain in this case are imported items recommended by the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy, and their identity cannot be recognized as identical to the new parts of the Crain, which are the items approved by the importer. Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that the import declaration of the Crain's used parts is an import declaration of the Crain's used parts of the Crain's used parts. In this regard, the lower court's decision that the Defendants' judgment in this part constitutes the crime of preliminary import without a license is justifiable, and the lower court's decision that the Defendants' judgment in this part constitutes the crime of preliminary import under the relevant Customs Act and the corresponding provisions of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, etc. of Specific Crimes, and that there were no errors by either misapprehending the legal principles on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes

Therefore, there is no reason to discuss the facts and opinions that are contrary thereto.

Therefore, the Defendants’ appeals are without merit, and they are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)