Defendant 1 and one other

Socaps (prosecutions) and Lee Young-hoon (Trial)

Attorney Yellow Dogra, leap (for the defendant)

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for 8 months and by a fine of 2.8 billion won, respectively.

Seized evidence1 through 9 shall be confiscated from the defendant corporation.

To order the defendant corporation to pay the amount equivalent to the above fine.

[Status and Duties of the Defendant]

Defendant Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) is a domestic corporation established for the purpose of importing and selling automobiles. Defendant 1 worked from January 2, 2007 to the date of Defendant Co., Ltd. for the aforementioned period from around January 2, 2007, and was in charge of automobile exhaust gas and noise-related certification as the head of the above company’s laws and regulations and certification team. Nonindicted Co. 3 worked from October 9, 2008 to the date of August 2015 at Defendant Co., Ltd. and was in charge of customs clearance of imported automobiles under the main logistics team of the above company from around 2010 to August 2015. Nonindicted Co. 4 worked from around April 2015 to around September 2016, and from around August 3, 2015 to around August 3, 2015, Nonindicted Co. 5 is a person in charge of customs clearance of imported automobiles as the main logistics team leader of the above company’s main logistics team.

【Criminal Facts】

1. Defendant 1

(a) Violation of the Clean Air Conservation Act and the Noise and Vibration Control Act;

Where an automobile importer intends to modify important matters prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment (such as exhaust gas and noise-related parts publicly announced by the Minister of Environment) among the details of exhaust gas and noise certification from the Minister of Environment, it shall obtain certification

그럼에도 불구하고 피고인은 2014. 1. 2. 평택시 (주소 1 생략) 공소외 1 회사 야적창고 또는 화성시 (주소 2 생략) 공소외 2 회사 물류센터에서, ‘◇◇◇◇◇ ◇◇◇◇◇◇◇ ◇◇◇◇◇◇’ 차종의 소음 관련 부품인 소음기가 변경되었음에도 이에 대한 변경인증을 받지 아니하고 위 자동차를 수입한 것을 비롯하여, 위 일시경부터 2017. 7. 5.까지 14개 차종에 대한 5개의 배출가스 또는 소음 관련 부품이 변경되었음에도 위와 같이 변경인증을 받지 아니하고 별지 범죄일람표(변경미인증, 다만, 순번 11, 14, 20, 25, 26, 29, 36 부분은 제외) 기재와 같이 총 6,894대의 △△ 승용차를 각각 수입하였다.

B. Violation of the Customs Act

No one shall import a motor vehicle without obtaining permission, approval, recommendation, certification, or other conditions necessary for import in accordance with Acts and subordinate statutes or by satisfying such conditions or by any other illegal means, any person who intends to import a motor vehicle shall import the motor vehicle in compliance with the permissible emission levels prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment, noise in compliance with the permissible emission levels for manufactured motor vehicles prescribed by Presidential Decree, and obtain prior certification from the Minister of Environment that the motor vehicle importer can maintain the motor vehicle exhaust gas in compliance with the permissible emission levels for manufactured motor vehicles within the warranty period of manufactured motor vehicles and certification that the noise of the motor vehicle conforms to the permissible emission standards for manufactured motor vehicles ordered by the Minister of Environment, and obtain amended certification to revise important matters (such as exhaust gas and noise-related parts publicly announced by the Minister

그럼에도 불구하고 피고인은 2014. 1. 2. 평택시 (주소 1 생략) 공소외 1 회사 야적창고 또는 화성시 (주소 2 생략) 공소외 2 회사 물류센터에서, 소음 관련 부품인 소음기가 변경되어 소음 변경인증을 받아야 함에도 변경인증을 받지 아니한 상태로 독일국 ☆☆☆☆☆사로부터 구매한 ‘◇◇◇◇◇ ◇◇◇◇◇◇◇ ◇◇◇◇◇◇’ △△ 승용차 1대 84,674,540원(원가 55,377,150원) 상당을 평택세관에 수입신고 후 수리받아 위 창고에서 출고하였다.

In addition, from the above date to July 5, 2017, the Defendant denied the amount of KRW 624,539,164,430 (the total market price of KRW 417,476,586,283) of the total market price of KRW 6,894, 624,539,164,430 (the total amount of KRW 417,476,586,283), as stated in the annexed crime sight table (only 51,14,20,25,26, 29, and 36).

2. The defendant corporation

(a) Violation of the Clean Air Conservation Act and the Noise and Vibration Control Act;

Defendant 1, an employee of the Defendant, imported 6,894 automobiles without obtaining exhaust gas or noise alteration certification with respect to the Defendant’s business as stated in the above Section 1-A.

B. Violation of the Customs Act

(i) a breach of customs law following the import of automobiles for which authentication of modification has not been granted;

Defendant 1, an employee of the Defendant, did not obtain exhaust gas or noise alteration certification with respect to the Defendant’s business as set forth in Article 1-B of the above Act, and illegally imported the Defendant’s total amount of KRW 624,539,164,430 (the total amount of KRW 417,476,586,283).

(ii) a breach of customs law arising from the importation of automobiles before certification;

피고인은 피고인의 사용인인 공소외 3, 공소외 4, 공소외 5가 피고인의 업무에 관하여 2013. 6. 5.경 평택시 (주소 1 생략) 소재 공소외 1 회사 야적창고에서, 위와 같이 배출가스 및 소음 인증을 받아야 함에도 이를 받지 아니한 상태로 독일국 ☆☆☆☆☆사로부터 구매한 ▽▽▽▽ △△ 승용차 1대 46,962,530원(원가 30,901,350원) 상당을 평택세관에 수입신고 후 수리받아 위 창고에서 출고한 것을 비롯하여, 위 일시경부터 2016. 9. 13.까지 사이에 별지 범죄일람표(인증전수입) 기재와 같이 2,468회에 걸쳐 배출가스 및 소음 인증을 받지 않아 법령에 따른 조건을 갖추지 못한 자동차 2,468대 시가 합계 167,376,201,890원(원가 합계 111,375,656,198원) 상당을 부정수입하였다.

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each prosecutor's office and police interrogation protocol regarding Nonindicted 4, Nonindicted 5, and Nonindicted 3

1. Each prosecutor's office and police interrogation protocol against Nonindicted 6 and Nonindicted 7

1. A written accusation;

1. Copies of information input reports, news reports (the Ministry of Environment, February 3, 2017), each investigation report (the first order, 5, 12, 16, 19, 69, 96, 123, 127, 146, and 155), and the import and export customs clearance manual (No. 8703) for each item of the HS; summary of the import notice; summary of the import notice; the register of certified passenger cars; the register of certified copies of the corporate register; the list of seizure records; the list of particulars of the bonded area codes; the list of contents of each e-mail; each e-mail, the national environmental department and private teaching institute (the date of modified report; March 16, 2017); the application for certification of modification; the inquiry report; the results of the review of the investigation report; the summary of the approval for modification of the motor vehicle organization of the company, the organization of the company; the procedure for granting certification for modification of the imported gas; the summary of administrative disposition and the documents;

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

(a) The Defendants: Articles 270(2), 241(1) (illegal import), 91 subparag. 4, 48(2) of the Clean Air Conservation Act (the fact that the Defendants failed to comply with the procedure for the alteration of important matters related to the exhaust gas), and Articles 57 subparag. 5, 31(2) of the Noise and Vibration Control Act (the fact that the procedure for the alteration of important matters related to noise has been breached); and

B. Defendant Company: Article 279 of each Customs Act, Article 95 of each Clean Air Conservation Act, and Article 59 of each Noise and Vibration Control Act

1. Commercial competition;

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (the provisions of the Customs Act concerning each vehicle, the provisions of the Clean Air Conservation Act or the provisions of the Noise and Vibration Control Act, and the punishment prescribed for each of the offenses of the most severe punishment)

1. Selection of punishment (Defendant 1);

Imprisonment Selection

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

A. Defendant 1: the former part of Article 37, Articles 38(1)2 and 50 of the Criminal Act

B. Defendant Company: the first sentence of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 278 of the Customs Act

1. Confiscation;

Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Defendant 1

(a) The non-existence of each legal obligation under Article 270(2) of the Customs Act and penal provision for the omission of a report of change (notice), and the assertion that there is no legal obligation (related to noise machine, human-schoolr, and change cost);

1) The assertion

The part of the instant criminal facts pertaining to the modification of noise devices, human-schoolers, and the part pertaining to the modification of transmission fees under the Clean Air Conservation Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Air Act”) and the Enforcement Rules of the Noise and Vibration Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the “ Noise Control Act”). The above modification reporting procedure is against the principle of no punishment without the law and the principle of statutory reservation to apply the penal provisions of the Air Act and the Noise Control Act on the violation of the obligation for modification, on the ground that the modification reporting procedure differs from the modification procedure of the atmospheric law and the applicable rules, the object, purport, procedure and form, application period, processing period, approval form, and fees.

In the same context, Article 270(2) of the Customs Act shall be punished in cases where the imported goods are imported in an unlawful manner without fulfilling the conditions necessary for import as prescribed by the “Acts and subordinate statutes.” Since the obligation to report a change in the provisions of the Air and Noise Act and the Enforcement Rules of the Noise Act are not “responsibilities under the Acts and subordinate statutes” referred to in the above provision, the punishment by applying Article 270(2) of the Customs Act is against the principle of no punishment without law and the principle of statutory reservation.

2) Relevant statutes

【Enforcement Rule of the Air Act】

Article 67 (Application for Change of Certification)

(1) "Important matters prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment" in Article 48 (2) of the Act means any of the following matters:

1. Exhaust displacement;

3. Change, speed reduction, and weight of a power transmission device at a motor vehicle for a power-driven test (limited to where the power transmission device is increased by at least ten percent);

8. Exhaust gas-related parts publicly announced by the Minister of Environment.

(2) A person who intends to modify the details of certification pursuant to Article 48 (2) of the Act shall submit an application for certification of modification in attached Form 34 to the Minister of Environment (in cases of imported automobiles, referring to the President of the National Institute of Environmental Research) along with

1. Documents attesting the same motor vehicle model;

2. Specifications of automobile specifications;

3. An explanatory note on the details of certification to be modified.

4. A review report on changes in exhaust gases before and after the details of certification are changed;

(3) Where any matter other than those specified in the subparagraphs of paragraph (1) is modified and the quantity of exhaust gases is not increased even though matters specified in paragraph (1) are modified, the relevant changed details shall be reported to the Minister of Environment (in cases of imported automobiles, referring to the President of the National Institute of Environmental Research) notwithstanding paragraph (2). In such cases, it shall be deemed that the certification for alteration under Article 48 (2)

[Enforcement Rule of the Noise Act]

Article 34 (Application for Change of Authentication)

(1) "Important matters prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment" in Article 31 (2) of the Act means any of the following:

1. The alteration cost of a power transmission device, speed reduction cost, and the number of trains at a motor vehicle for a power-driven test;

2. Capacity, materials, and interior structure of the noise apparatus;

(2) A person who intends to modify any certified matter pursuant to Article 31 (2) of the Act shall submit an application for certification of modification in attached Form 17 to the President of the National Institute of Environmental Research, along with the following documents:

1. Documents attesting the same motor vehicle model;

2. Specifications of automobile specifications;

3. An explanatory note on the modified details of certification;

4. A review report on changes in noise before and after the revision of the certification.

(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (2), if the noise does not increase even after changing the items referred to in the subparagraphs of paragraph (1), the head of the National Institute of Environmental Research shall notify the change to the President of the National Institute of Environmental Research. In such cases, the change shall be deemed to have been approved pursuant to Article 31 (2)

3) Determination

(5) In light of the above-mentioned circumstances, i.e., (i) noise, router, and router under the provisions of Article 48(2) of the Air Act and Article 34(2) of the Noise Act, if the above-mentioned provision applies to "important matters prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment", it is a principle that the above-mentioned provision is to obtain certification for alteration regardless of whether exhaust gas or noise increases. (ii) However, if exhaust gas or noise does not increase after the above-mentioned change, it is deemed that the above-mentioned change is approved only by reporting or notifying the President of the National Institute of Environmental Research, and Article 67(3) of the Enforcement Rule of the Noise Act and Article 34(3) of the Enforcement Rule of the Noise Act. (iii) It is difficult to view that the above-mentioned provision does not apply to the above-mentioned change of the noise law as the premise that the above-mentioned provision does not apply to the change of the noise law, as well as to the change of the noise law before and after the change.

B. On purpose and non-existence

1) The assertion

① 9단 변속기의 변속비 변경에 관하여는, 독일 본사인 ☆☆☆☆☆(이하 ‘본사’라고 한다)로부터 변경 사실에 대한 제대로 된 통보를 받지 못하여 피고인 1로서는 변경인증절차를 이행할 수 없었던 것이어서 그에 관한 피고인 1의 고의가 인정되지 않는다.

② In the application of the ○○○○ Model among the crime sight table (hereinafter “the application of the ○○○○ Model”) where the authentication of modification was omitted, the procedure for the authentication of modification was commenced after notifying the head office of the scheduled fact of modification. However, Defendant 1’s intention is not recognized, since it was imported prior to obtaining the authentication of modification with the business of the order department.

2) Relevant legal principles

In a case where a criminal defendant denies criminal intent, it is inevitable to prove indirect facts having substantial relevance with the criminal intent due to the nature of things, and what constitutes indirect facts having considerable relevance should be determined by the method of reasonably determining the link of facts based on the close observation or analysis power based on normal empirical rule (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do7205, Nov. 16, 2007, etc.).

3) Determination

In full view of the following circumstances recognized by the aforementioned legal principles, it is reasonable to deem that Defendant 1 had been aware of the omission of the certification for modification of the matters requiring the certification for modification. Therefore, Defendant 1’s intentional intent is sufficiently recognized. Accordingly, this part of the assertion is rejected.

A) As to the change of speed of the 9nd transmission period

① Although Defendant 1 was unable to receive a proper notification from the head office with regard to the change of the speed of change of the nine-dimensional period, it is entirely difficult to find out what Defendant 1’s “Notice as to the System.”

② In the data provided on July 21, 2015, the point at which the head office is applied to the new transmission cost (MEax) by each type of the type produced by the head office is indicated as the primary color in the year table, and the document itself indicates that its content is an important information.

③ The argument that the Defendant Company’s strategic planning team or certification team did not properly determine the type of imported vehicles, the relevant receipt date, and the need for certification for modification thereof, among vehicles subject to new transmission costs, which were notified as of July 14, 2015, pursuant to the alteration plan notified as of July 14, 2015, are not determined by the head office, but rather determined by the Defendant Company’s strategic planning team or certification team.

④ From among the materials provided on July 21, 2015 by the head office, the document dated February 3, 2015, which was indicated as “draft” was merely one-way among the entire eight pages, and thus, deeming the entire data as the initial level of the data examined inside the German head office is inconsistent with the common sense.

⑤ Since the plan for the change of speed for the nine-dimensional change period is already established by the notification of the head office on July 14, 2015, the defendant 1, a certified manager of the defendant company, should decide whether to proceed with the procedure for the change, and request the head office to provide more active data to ensure that the change of speed for the change is not omitted, the defendant 1, a certified manager of the defendant company, was waiting to wait for the change from the head office to the date of arrival of necessary data, and the content of such assertion is difficult to justify the omission of the change certification itself.

④ According to the e-mail sent and received between Defendant 1 and the head office in relation to the alteration of procedure, Defendant 1 did not proceed with the procedure for the alteration certification despite the fact that the above alteration of procedure was clearly aware that it is subject to the alteration certification under the domestic law. Such circumstance is contrary to Defendant 1’s assertion that the alteration certification was omitted due to the lack of data provided by the head office.

B) As to the application of 00 ○○ ○○ Model 9 times more

① With respect to the application of the 9 short speed change, Defendant 1 notified from the head office around October 2015 that the 00○○○○○○ was changed from around December 2015 to nine parts. From around that time, Defendant 1 asserted as if he prepared for the alteration of the said fact. In fact, Defendant 1 had been notified of the said fact by e-mail from the certified team of the head office prior to that time, and if the process for the alteration was commenced around that time, Defendant 1 could complete the alteration of the said fact on or around December 2015, even though the alteration was deemed to have been sufficiently completed, Defendant 1 started the alteration certification procedure only after October 2015, and thus, the said assertion is difficult to believe.

② Even if Defendant 1’s head office around October 16, 2015 notified that “○○○○○○○○○○ vehicle equipped with a nine short speed change is expected to be manufactured from December 2015,” and that the procedure for prompt authentication of modification was commenced, Defendant 1 ought to immediately notify the head office of the fact that the said notification was ordinarily required for four to five months until the completion of the authentication of modification, taking into account that the authentication of modification would normally take place until the completion of the said period, Defendant 5) immediately notified Defendant 1’s main logistics team of the order order should have delivered directions in advance to prevent the completion of the authentication of modification on the nine short speed change installation in ordering vehicles on December 2015, but did not do so.

③ There is no provision suggesting that the scheduled date of withdrawal of the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on March 8, 2016. Rather, even according to the notification of the head office on October 16, 2015, it is reasonable to deem the said vehicle as the scheduled date of domestic withdrawal on February 2, 2016. As such, it is difficult to believe that the allegation that the procedure for alteration was prepared in line with the scheduled date of withdrawal is difficult.

④ Since the Defendant Company’s order takes about two months from the time of ordering the vehicle to sales to actual sear or consumption, it is a usual business process to place an order for the vehicle in advance. Therefore, the Defendant Company’s order from January 2016 to February 2015 should be deemed to have been ordered from October 2015 to November 2015. In view of evidence, it is recognized that the Defendant Company ordered the ○○○○○○○○○○○○ vehicle with nine short speed change installed around October 2015. Thus, as Defendant 1 asserted, there was reorganization of organization between the Defendant Company and from October 2015 to January 2016, the circumstances that the meetings between the authentication team and the order distribution team were not properly conducted between October 1, 2015 and the order distribution team.

⑤ With respect to the reasons for import with a motor vehicle with a nine short speed change without obtaining certification for alteration, Defendant 1 ordered the motor vehicle without recognizing the fact that the model number of the motor vehicle with a nine short speed change is identical to that of the motor vehicle with a seven short speed change, and without recognizing the change of the front speed change, it is unclear whether the motor vehicle with nine short speed change device was brought into the Republic of Korea, and whether the motor vehicle with nine short speed change device was brought into the Republic of Korea, and whether the certification of the motor vehicle with nine short speed change device was issued with a false knowledge that it would affect the effect of the motor vehicle with nine short speed change device, and that the head office and the defendant company did not present objective data that can confirm whether the basic and important business of the change of change, such as the head office and the defendant company, actually took place as above.

⑥ 피고인 회사는 환경부장관으로부터 ㉠ 2011. 5.경부터 2012. 8.경까지 연료분사기(인젝터) 등 부품이 변경된 것에 대해 변경인증을 받지 않고 자동차를 수입한 점에 대해 2013. 1. 31. 과징금 10억 주9) 원, ㉡ 2016. 1.부터 같은 해 2.까지 7단 자동변속기를 9단 자동변속기로 변경된 것에 대해 변경인증을 받지 않고 자동차를 수입한 점에 대해 2016. 3. 17. 과징금 1억 7,000만 원, ㉢ 2015. 4. 27.부터 2016. 7. 26.까지 캐니스터가 변경된 것에 대해 변경인증을 받지 않고 자동차를 수입한 점에 대해 2016. 11. 25. 과징금 3억 1,690만 원, ㉣ 2016. 11.부터 2017. 1.까지 인터쿨러가 변경된 것에 대해 변경인증을 받지 않고 자동차를 수입한 점에 대해 2017. 2. 3. 과징금 4억 2,000만 원 등 총 4차례에 걸쳐 과징금처분을 받은 바 있고, 환경부가 2013년경 환경인증 관리실태 종합점검을 실시하자, 당시 피고인 회사를 비롯한 수입자동차 회사들은 각 기본인증 및 변경인증을 받은 내역에 따라 인증서에 첨부되어 인증받은 개별 배출가스 관련 부품의 부품번호 등을 확인한 후 환경부에 제출한 바 있으므로, 변경인증에 관한 사안은 피고인 회사 전체에 중요한 현안이었을 것으로 보인다.

7) As such, Defendant 1 served as a person in charge of the authentication of the Defendant Company during the period in which the penalty surcharge was imposed, if the omission of the authentication of modification was repeated during the above period, it should have failed to take measures to prevent fundamental recurrence of recurrence of prevention of recurrence by improving the system so as to make it impossible to place an order for the head office and the Defendant company’s modification of modification in the vehicle where the authentication of modification was not completed, upon recommendation to the head office and the Defendant company. However, there was no particular measure except for the case where the guidelines were made from June 201

8) The Defendant Company did not take any specific disciplinary measure, such as disciplinary action, against Defendant 1 who failed to comply with the procedure for authentication for modification while failing to properly verify or examine whether to grant the authentication for modification, or against employees of the order distribution team that imported the order distribution team with nine short speed changes, on which the head office was notified of the scheduled change.

9. Although the Defendants had no economic incentive to omit the authentication of modification on important matters, the Defendants had sufficient economic incentives at the Defendant Company level in light of the following circumstances:

On the other hand, at least 4-5 months have passed since the order of the vehicle subject to the establishment of the Association and the release after customs clearance. On the other hand, the certification procedure for alteration is at least 4-5 months, and since the test result does not go as desired, or if the National Institute of Environmental Research is ordered to supplement it, the period will expire, the certification for alteration will be completed, and if the income will take place, it can lead to a substantial compromise in sales after being back from the new competition with the competitors.

In order to proceed with the procedure for the revision of the Korean War, there are separate expenses, such as the defendant company should purchase the test vehicle separately.

The amount of penalty surcharge imposed on the non-approval even if the non-approval for change is omitted is included in the penalty surcharge imposed on December 28, 2017, but the total amount is less than 8 billion won, while the ex-factory price of the vehicle imported by the Defendant Company without the certification for change is more than 6,24.5 billion won, and the cost is more than 4,17.4 billion won, and if all imported vehicles are sold, the sales profit is more than 20 billion won, even if the sales profit is calculated roughly.

2. Defendant Company

A. The assertion

Recognizing the fact that Nonindicted 4, 3, and 5, who are employees of the Defendant Company’s logistics and transportation team, accepted the import declaration prior to obtaining basic certification for the pertinent imported vehicle. However, “the import base date” under Article 270(2) of the Customs Act, which is required to satisfy the conditions under the statutes, shall not be “the date of import declaration,” but “the date of shipment in a bonded area,” and “the date of shipment in a bonded area,” and “1,034 out of the vehicles listed in the attached list of crimes (import prior to certification)” obtained basic certification prior to the shipment in a bonded area, does not constitute

(b) Related statutes;

[Customs Act]

Article 2 (Definitions)

The terms used in this Act shall be defined as follows:

1. The term "import" means shipping foreign goods into the Republic of Korea (including any foreign goods shipped from the bonded area in cases of those passing through the bonded area) or consuming and using them (including the consumption and use of foreign goods within the means of transportation, but excluding the consumption and use of foreign goods falling under any of subparagraphs of Article 239) in the Republic of Korea;

4. The term "foreign goods" means any of the following goods:

(a) Goods (including fish, marine life, etc. collected or caught by foreign fishing boats, etc. in the high seas (including the high seas and the economic sea zone, other than the territorial sea of any foreign country; hereinafter the same shall apply)) which arrive in Korea from any foreign country before an import declaration thereon under Article 241 (1) (hereinafter referred to as "import declaration") has been accepted;

5. The term "domestic goods" means any of the following goods:

(a) Goods which exist in Korea and which are not foreign goods;

(c) Goods on which an import declaration prior to arrival under Article 244 (1) (hereinafter referred to as "import declaration prior to arrival") has been accepted;

Article 270 (Penalty for Evasion of Customs Duties)

(2) Any person who has filed an import declaration under Article 241 (1) and (2) or 244 (1) and imported goods without meeting requirements for permission, recommendation, certification or other conditions necessary for import under Acts and subordinate statutes or imported goods by meeting such requirements or conditions by fraudulent means shall be punished by imprisonment with labor for not more than three years or by a fine not exceeding 30 million won.

[Foreign Trade Act]

Article 12 (Consolidated Public Notice)

(1) Where the head of a related administrative agency establishes or amends the guidelines for export and import, he/she shall submit them to the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy so that the guidelines for export and import may be published pursuant to paragraph (2) before the enforcement

(2) The Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy shall integrate and publicly announce the guidelines for export and import submitted under paragraph (1).

[Act on Designation and Management of Free Trade Zones]

Article 32 (Special Cases concerning Approval for Export or Import, etc.)

(2) Goods falling under the export and import guidelines that are integrated and published under Article 12 of the Foreign Trade Act may be shipped into or out of any free trade zone into any free trade zone, notwithstanding the export and import guidelines determined and published by the relevant administrative agencies: Provided, That this shall not apply to goods falling under import-restricted items, such as narcotics, firearms, decomposed foods, etc. separately determined and published in the relevant integrated announcement.

(4) When goods referred to in paragraph (2) are shipped into the customs territory, the guidelines for export and import provided for in the combined announcement provided for in Article 12 of the Foreign Trade Act shall apply.

[ Clean Air Conservation Act]

Article 48 (Certification of Manufactured Cars)

(1) Where a motor vehicle manufacturer intends to manufacture a motor vehicle, he/she shall obtain prior certification from the Minister of Environment that the motor vehicle exhaust gas can be maintained in compliance with the permissible emission levels for manufactured motor vehicles for exhaust gases during the warranty period of exhaust gases: Provided, That

C. Determination

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged in light of the facts established by the evidence stated in the above statutes, i.e., (i) the basic certification should be obtained from the Minister of Environment in advance in order to import a motor vehicle; (ii) the basic certification should be completed on the basis of the time of import; (iii) the import of foreign goods should be deemed to have been imported when the import declaration was accepted; and (iv) the import of foreign goods should be deemed to have been carried in Korea (in the case of foreign goods going through a bonded area, referring to the entry from a bonded area). In addition, the case where foreign goods are carried in Korea (in the case of goods going through a bonded area) after the import declaration was provided with a security corresponding to customs duties prior to the import declaration, such as agricultural goods, constitutes a motor vehicle; and (iv) the import of the motor vehicle should be deemed to have been carried out immediately after the import declaration was received as domestic goods, and thus, it should not be changed even if the basic certification was obtained with respect to 1,034 of the motor vehicle at the time of import declaration thereafter.

Defendant 1 did not have a position to lead the instant crime, and therefore there is no special benefit that Defendant 1 gains. It is clear that Defendant 1’s primary crime and excessive work volume and stress are not good, and that Defendant 1 is trying to prevent recurrence by recognizing some criminal facts.

However, some of the arguments related to the grounds for omission of certification for alteration are difficult to understand in itself, and the omission of certification for alteration was repeated for a total of three years and six months from January 2, 2014 to July 5, 2017, and the fact that no improvement has been made at all at least four times during that period, a fine for the relevant responsible person cannot prevent the risk of recidivism by itself). While the sales profit earned by the Defendant Company was predicted before and after 20 billion won as seen earlier, the disadvantages suffered by the Defendant Company are the total of eight billion won penalty surcharges.

In the process of investigating the inconsistency between the test report kept in the head office and the test report submitted to the President of the National Institute of Environmental Research in the process of authentication, the defendant company's employees received a file containing information about the name of the vehicle, chassis number, minority number, and the error of the test vehicle, which was sent by the computer system of the former head office to the President of the National Institute of Environmental Research along with the application for the certification of alteration, and confirmed that some necessary parts were corrected. This is sufficient to raise doubt as to whether the test result was about the vehicle subject to the certification of alteration even if the test result did not reach the specification and alteration of the test report, and if the obligation for the certification of alteration was fulfilled properly, it cannot be absolutely caused.

Meanwhile, although the Defendants stressed that they reported the omission of certification for alteration late, the circumstances related to the ○○○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○ ○ ○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 9, which applied a single transmission period, sold 20 out of 349 total imported vehicles

The Defendants’ act of committing the instant crime is an act that directly collapses the Korean consumers’ full trust on vehicles imported and sold by them, and an act that emphasizes safety or a pleasant environment that cannot be converted into economic value, and it is inevitable to punish the Defendants even in order to prevent such a recurrence from repeating.

Accordingly, the punishment as ordered shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the motive and background of the instant crime, Defendant 1’s age, character and conduct, family relation, career, degree of contribution to the Defendant company, health status, and circumstances after the crime.

[Attachment]

Judge Lee Sung-sung

(1) The Defendant Company also followed the procedure for the alteration of the matter that was omitted due to the omission of the certification for alteration after the fact.

2) If the Defendants asserted, the Defendant neglected to report on the change of the noise machine in this case, the human-schoolr, and the change of the speed. Therefore, the degree of illegality due to the breach of duty is more severe.

3) It is evident that the obligation to modify the atmospheric law and noise law constitutes “responsibilities under the laws and regulations” as required by Article 270(2) of the Customs Act.

(4) Defendant 1 asserts that the data sent by the head office on July 21, 2015 is a global change plan and whether it is applied to the Korean market is not shown in the above data. Unless there are special reasons to exclude the Korean market in the global change plan, it is reasonable to view that the above change plan is naturally applicable to the Korean market, and that the head office provided the above data to Defendant 1 on such premise.

Note 5) From October to November 2015, around 2015, will be around November 2015.

(6) As Defendant 1 stated in the investigation process that the scheduled date of the said vehicle was around April 2016, it is true that Defendant 1’s assertion or statement alone cannot be confirmed at the time of arrival or at the time of arrival or at the time of arrival.

7) The foregoing vehicle is consistent with the time it was first brought into Korea.

Note 8) However, there seems to be little possibility that all two cases may occur.

9) From June 2016, Defendant Company: (a) prepared and implemented a guideline to enable the employees of the headquarters logistics team to verify in advance whether the relevant vehicle was certified before ordering the vehicle; (b) it is difficult to find an explanation to understand whether the said guideline was implemented only at the above point, despite the fact that there was a lack of disposition of penalty due to omission of certification for changes.

10) As data related to sentencing submitted by a defense counsel, the cases of similar cases where: (a) an amount equivalent to KRW 18.1 billion in total (the total domestic wholesale price of KRW 28.5 billion) of the cost of a medical device 42 years without obtaining certification of changes over 42 times for four years (the total amount of KRW 28.5 billion); (b) a fine of KRW 42 million was sentenced (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2016Da883, Apr. 26, 2017); and (c) a month of November, a case where (d) a person was sentenced to a fine of KRW 11.3 billion in total (the total amount of KRW 7.2 billion in a single-story shooting device of his/her own personal credit prior to first-do, who was 1.4 billion in total (the total amount shall be KRW 7.2 billion in total) and was sentenced to a fine of KRW 1,050,000 in total (the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2017Ka3184.46.646,74843 months in total).