[1] The customs intent and the timing of the withdrawal of the duty of the goods

[2] The case holding that there is a criminal intent to evade customs duty

[1] As long as there is a perception that the goods subject to the payment of customs duties in a bonded area are shipped out of the bonded area without obtaining an import license, it shall be deemed that there is a criminal intent for the withdrawal of customs duties, and the timing of the withdrawal of customs duties is when they were shipped out without permission.

[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below which recognized the criminal intent of evading customs duties, even if the customs duty was intended to be paid after the shipment of goods by using the purchase price as a normal tax invoice and then by collecting the customs duty later

[1] Articles 137(1), 137-2, and 180(1) of the former Customs Act (amended by Act No. 4674 of December 31, 1993) / [2] Article 180(1) of the former Customs Act (amended by Act No. 4674 of December 31, 1993)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 84Do782 delivered on June 26, 1984 (Gong1984, 1381) Supreme Court Decision 83Do1988 delivered on December 26, 1984 (Gong1985, 282) Supreme Court Decision 86Do221 delivered on July 21, 1987 (Gong1987, 1424)

Defendant 1 and three others

Defendants

Attorneys Kim Young-soo et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 93No3090 delivered on August 9, 1995

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to Defendant 1’s ground of appeal

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below is just in finding the defendant guilty of the crime of this case, and the ground of unfair sentencing cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal in this case which sentenced the same sentence as the court below. The ground of appeal cannot be accepted.

2. As to Defendant 2, 3, and 4’s grounds of appeal

According to Article 137(1) of the former Customs Act (amended by Act No. 4674 of Dec. 31, 1993), when importing goods, an import declaration shall be filed with the head of the relevant customs office and a license shall be obtained. According to Article 137-2 of the same Act, the import license shall not be granted for the goods to be paid with customs duties unless the customs duties are paid. Thus, insofar as there is a perception that the goods to be paid with customs duties are shipped out without obtaining the import license, the customs duty evasion period shall be deemed to be a criminal intent, and the time of withdrawal of customs duties shall be deemed to be the time when the goods were shipped out without permission (see Supreme Court Decisions 84Do782, Jun. 26, 1984; 86Do221, Jul. 21, 1987, etc.).

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, it is just to find that Defendant 2 and 3 had a criminal intent to evade customs duties at the time of release of the instant goods from Korea, in light of the above legal principles, and it does not mean that the above Defendants were willing to pay customs duties by issuing a normal tax invoice with the amount included in customs duties after removal of the goods as the purchase price, and later collecting customs duties. The fact-finding and judgment of the court below cannot be deemed to have violated the rules of evidence or there is a misapprehension of the legal principles as to the failure of reason, failure of reason, failure of duty imposition, or intentional omission of customs duties. The grounds for appeal cannot be accepted.

3. Therefore, all appeals by the Defendants are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)