The case reversing the judgment of the court below which acquitted a person of a breach of duty on the ground that there is no evidence to specifically recognize the route of smuggling in a case where a person purchases domestic freezing, which was not regularly imported through customs clearance.

The case reversing the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the facts charged of the acquisition of duty evasion on the ground that there is no evidence to recognize specifically the course of the smuggling import of the freezing, on the ground that it is difficult to see that ocean-going crew members collected their return in kind with their personal belongings in light of the quantity of the frozen red fish which was not regularly imported or cleared through customs, the purchase process, etc., and it is hard to see that the statute of limitations for the principal crime was already completed at the time of the purchase of the goods in light of the unique characteristics of the goods such as red, on the ground that there is no other evidence to prove specifically the course of the smuggling import of the freezing red fish

Articles 180 and 186 of the Customs Act, Articles 308 and 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 75Do2047 decided Apr. 24, 1979 (Gong1979, 11956) 80Do86 decided Mar. 25, 1980 (Gong1980, 12757) 79Do2071 decided Nov. 25, 1980 (Gong1981, 13472) 86Do728 decided Jun. 10, 1986 (Gong1986, 901) 92Do3327 decided Mar. 23, 1993 (Gong193Sang), 94Do1335 decided Sep. 13, 1994 (Gong194, 2695)

Defendant 1 and two others

Prosecutor

Attorney Park Ho-ho

Busan District Court Decision 93No2433 delivered on January 14, 1994

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The case shall be remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, Defendant 1: (a) purchased 10,050 kg of the total amount of 67,047,97,970 won with knowledge of the fact from Defendant 1 and Defendant 3, the executive director of Defendant 2 Co., Ltd., with knowledge of the fact, purchase price of 80,40,00 won in total (467, 31,200,00 won in indictment), but this was stated 31,720,00 won in gold or red, 12,720,00 won in this year and 7.4 times a month of the same month; (b) it appears that the above Defendants purchased the above kg of the total amount of 10,050 kh of the knited red, imported from foreign countries; and (c) it did not change from the total amount of the above facts charged, on the ground that there was no evidence that the above Defendants purchased the above gnit in Korea for the reason that the above grhe purchased.

2. However, in light of the record, the court below also recognized the facts that the freezing red fish of this case was domestically produced and that the above freezing red is not cleared and cleared through customs, and in light of the facts, it seems that such facts can be sufficiently recognized, and Defendant 1 made a confession that seafarers purchased and sold the freezing red fish illegally imported by the prosecutor's office, and made a statement that this fact was also known to Defendant Park Jong-sik (see, e.g., 186 pages, 188 of the investigation record). In light of the quantity of red fish transacted transacted in this case and the process of purchasing the red fish of this case where Defendant 1 stated, it is difficult to view that oceanmen collected the red fish of this case from the Republic of Korea with their personal belongings, and it is hard to view that the red fish of this case was collected from the Republic of Korea with a little amount of red fish, and unless there are any other grounds to see that the red fish imported in Korea was not a sealed good at the time of the completion of the statute of limitations. Furthermore, in light of the characteristics of the red fish of this case.

Therefore, the court below's finding the defendant not guilty on the ground that there is no evidence to prove the crime of this case on the grounds that there is no other special reason on the grounds that there is no evidence to prove the crime of this case, shall not be deemed to have been erroneous in the purport of the Supreme Court's precedents (see Supreme Court Decision 75Do2047, Apr. 24, 1979; Supreme Court Decision 79Do2071, Nov. 25, 1980, etc.) concerning the goods under special circumstances such as the kinds of release on bail, and it shall not be deemed to have erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the acquisition of smuggling, or in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The part of the grounds for appeal pointing

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below against the Defendants shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)