Loss of stolen goods under the Customs Act

Article 186 of the Customs Act is not only a breach of customs duty under Article 180 of the same Act, but also a violation of Article 179 of the Customs Act, which is directly related to the collection of customs duties, and the acquisition of goods for violation of Article 181, which are not related to the collection of customs duties. Therefore, the legal interest protected by the Customs Act is not only the securing of national fiscal power by the authority to collect customs duties, so the duration of the stolen goods in Article 186 of the Customs Act shall not be five years, which is the expiration period of the authority to collect customs duties, and it shall be interpreted that the statute of limitations under the Criminal Procedure Act shall expire, and it shall be interpreted that the state's power shall not be exercised, and that it shall be interpreted that it

Article 186 of the Taxation Act

Defendant 1 and four others

Prosecutor

Attorney Kim Jong-ho (Attorney Kim Jong-ho, Counsel for the defendant 2 and 3)

Daegu District Court Decision 76No2620 delivered on November 18, 1976

The appeal is dismissed.

Examination of the grounds of appeal by the Prosecutor of Daegu District Prosecutors' Office is examined.

As to each of the facts charged in violation of the Customs Act against the Defendants, the court below held that the legal interest protected by the law of mediating, acquiring, keeping, etc. the duty evasion should be secured by the detailed administration. According to Article 25(2) of the Customs Act, the extinctive prescription for the duty evasion, etc. shall expire unless it is exercised for five years from the date on which the duty evasion can be exercised. However, since five years after the date on which the Defendants arranged, acquired, or stored this issue, the duty of collecting customs duties has already ceased to exist due to the completion of the extinctive prescription, and therefore, the Defendants cannot be deemed to have lost the duty evasion nature. Accordingly, the court below affirmed the first instance judgment that acquitted the Defendants on the grounds that the Defendants did not have the legal interest protected by Article 18(1) of the Customs Act for the duty evasion and the duty evasion and the duty evasion and the duty evasion and the duty evasion and the duty evasion and the duty evasion and the duty evasion and the duty evasion and the duty imposition of the goods are not prohibited under Article 18(1) of the Customs Act.

On the other hand, it cannot be said that the goods falling under Article 186 of the above Customs Act have the so-called stolen goods subject to permanent acquisition, etc., so it shall not be said that the statute of limitations has expired against the principal offender such as the crime of evading customs duties under Article 180 of the Customs Act, the crime of exporting or importing prohibited goods under Article 179 of the Customs Act, or the crime of exporting or importing without a license under Article 181 of the same Act, and therefore, if the violation goods have reached the stage of not being subject to confiscation or collection, it shall be deemed that the stolen goods under the so-called Customs Act are lost.

If so, the court below erred in finding that this case was excluded from the subject of acquisition under Article 186 of the Customs Act as the extinction of the authority to collect customs duties, but on the other hand, since this reflect was legally confirmed by the court below that it was "the non-indicted 14" of August 14, 1968, and it cannot be found that there was any special circumstance, the statute of limitations on the crime of evading customs duties under Article 180 of the Customs Act against the non-indicted 1 of the above criminal was passed from August 14, 1968 and completed on August 13, 1975, which was seven years after the date of the crime, since all of the crimes committed by the defendants were legally recognized by the court below, it cannot be punished as Article 186 of the Customs Act for the defendants' acts after the statute of limitations on the above non-indicted 1 of this case was expired.

Therefore, the decision of the court below that upheld the judgment of the court of first instance that acquitted the defendants on this point is justifiable in its result, and the appeal that attacks the judgment of the court below on the basis of the above different opinions cannot be adopted. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yu Tae-hun (Presiding Justice)