Number of Crimes of Evasion of Customs Duties

The number of crimes of evading customs duties is determined on the basis of the fulfillment and recovery of the elements of the violation. Article 4 of the Customs Act provides that customs duties shall be imposed on the imported goods according to their nature and quantity at the time of filing an import declaration under Article 137. Article 17 of the same Act provides that a person who intends to import goods shall file a duty return with the head of the relevant customs office pursuant to Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Customs Duties Act at the time of filing an import declaration, and the head of the relevant customs office shall examine the matters stated in the import declaration when he/she receives the duty return. As such, customs duties are imposed on the method of duty payment each time when the person liable for duty payment files an import declaration on the imported goods. Since Article 180 (1) 1 of the same Act provides that the person liable for duty payment shall be determined as one duty payment each time when the import declaration on the imported goods is made, the act of evading customs duties shall be protected by the legitimate interest of the imported goods at the time of filing an import declaration on the imported goods.

Articles 4, 17, 137, and 180(1)1 of the Customs Act; Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Customs Act; Article 37 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 82Do938 delivered on June 22, 1982 (Gong1982, 726) Supreme Court Decision 87Do84 delivered on December 22, 1987 (Gong1988, 373)

Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor

Attorney Park Yong-he et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 98No1711 delivered on February 3, 1999

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The number of crimes of tax evasion is determined on the basis of the fulfillment and recovery of the elements of a violation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 82Do938, Jun. 22, 1982; 87Do84, Dec. 22, 1987). However, Article 4 of the Customs Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") provides that customs duties shall be imposed on the imported goods according to their nature and quantity at the time of filing an import declaration under Article 137. Article 17 of the Act provides that a person who intends to import goods shall file a duty return with the head of a customs office in accordance with Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Customs Act at the time of filing an import declaration. Article 17 of the Act provides that the head of a customs office shall examine the particulars stated in the import declaration when a duty return is filed. Thus, one duty liability shall be determined each time when a person liable for payment files an import declaration on the imported goods. Thus, since the customs duty evasion of Article 180(1)1) of the Act requires legitimate legal interests and interests and interests as to be protected at each time of the import declaration.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, although Defendant 1’s act of evading customs duties of this case was divided into the same type of each of the crimes of this case, and the same type of crimes, and part of the import declaration was entered at the same time, Defendant 1’s act of evading customs duties of this case constitutes one of the crimes independently at each time when the import declaration was issued with a declaration completion certificate from the customs collector, and the pertinent imported goods were taken out, and it cannot be punished by applying Article 6(4)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes against each of the crimes of this case under Article 6(4)(2) of the judgment below. This is just in accordance with the above legal principles, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the number of crimes in evading customs duties. Supreme Court Decision 84Do782 Decided June 26, 1984 cited in the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor, and it is inappropriate to adopt a single act of evading customs duties of this case as a single case where the goods can be taken out as one of this case.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)