Where punishment is repealed due to the amendment of the Customs Act;

The act of exporting 500 parcels of the travelers' check was repealed by the amendment of the former Customs Act (No. 600 of April 10, 61), and thus, this case must be licensed.

Customs Act Article 197, subparagraph 600 of Article 126, Article 326 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Prosecutor

Defendant

The Incheon District Court of the first instance, the Seoul High Court of the second instance, 4293-type public2428 delivered on March 23, 1961

We reverse the original judgment.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

45 days from the number of days of detention before the judgment of the first instance shall be included in the original sentence: Provided, That the execution of the sentence shall be suspended for three years from the date when this judgment became final and conclusive.

A large box, seized, one (No. 1), 36 (No. 6), 34, Mmonc 24, Mmonc 24 (No. 13), Jinyang 26, Minyang 29, Minyang 29, Minyang 18 (No. 16), Ginyang 33, Ginyang 18, Ginyang 8 (No. 19), Ginc 23 (No. 20), Woo 20, Minc 35 (No. 22), Minc finc 35 (No. 23), Minc finc fluor 20) shall be confiscated.

Acquittal on importers of hydrotension prohibited items

The grounds for appeal by the chief public prosecutor of the Seoul High Public Prosecutor's Office and the grounds for appeal by the defense counsel are as shown in the attached Form.

In review of the judgment of the court below ex officio, the defendant recognized the fact that the defendant, between July 4, 1960 and July 6 of the same month, purchased USD 500,000,000 from 1,250,000 to 625,000,000 from 1,250,000 to 6,000,0000,0000,000 for 10,000,000 for 10,000,000 for 10,000,000 for 1,250,000 for 6,000,000 for 1,000,000 for 1,000,000 for 1,000,000 for 1,000,000 for 3,000,000 for 1,00.

However, since the Customs Act, Article 126 subparagraph 4 of the Customs Act, which provides for the smuggling goods, was repealed by Act No. 600, Apr. 10, 1961 after the crime was committed, the original decision cannot be exempted since it constitutes the time when punishment was repealed due to the repeal or repeal of the statute after the crime was committed. Therefore, the original decision shall be reversed in accordance with Article 385, Article 383 subparagraph 7 and Article 391 of the Criminal Procedure Act (Act No. 705) prior to the amendment of the Addenda of the Criminal Procedure Act (Act No. 705) and Article 383 subparagraph 7 and Article 391, and therefore, it is not necessary to determine that the above facts of the counsel do not constitute a crime, and this case is sufficient to directly render a judgment in this part, and thus, the following decision is made as follows.

Criminal facts recognized by the Supreme Court are as follows:

From July 1, 1958 to April 4, 1960, the Defendant purchased goods equivalent to 200 scooters from Hong Kong around August 1960 to 3398,00 from the person who was in office as the trade head of the Grand Kong Trade Department located in Seoul, and then sent the goods to four boxes on the line of the 14th of the same month, and then returned to the Republic of Korea on August 25, 1960, with a large quantity of 4 winners difficult customs clearance due to their resignation, and then tried to have three boxes (Articles 1, 3, and 4) from among those who were in office as the head of the trade division of the Grand Kong company located in Seoul, and to have 200 scooters constructed a new customs clearance procedure, and to have 200 scood the remaining goods removed from the 26th of the same month and tried to have 1000 scood from the 26th of the same month.

Examining evidence

1. Statement to the effect as stated in the decision of the court of first instance and that of the second instance;

2. Statement consistent with the facts of the judgment of Non-Indicted 2 at the court below

3. Each statement consistent with the facts of the judgment among the suspect interrogation records against Non-Indicted 3 and Non-Indicted 4 made by the prosecutor

4. Statement of facts before and after the compliance with the facts stated in the judgment among the statement protocol against Nonindicted Party 1 as witness prepared by the public prosecutor;

5. Each existing presence of seized evidence.

Since the facts of the judgment can be recognized by taking into account the facts are sufficient to prove.

In the application of the law, the facts of the decision are as follows: (a) the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months within the term of imprisonment, which is prescribed in Article 198(1) of the Customs Act; (b) the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for forty-five days during the period of detention before the pronouncement of the judgment in the first instance under Article 57 of the Criminal Act; and (c) the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for forty-five days during the period of detention before the sentence in the first instance under Article 57 of the Criminal Act; and (d) the defendant shall be punished by taking into account the fact that the defendant, who is the first offender, has committed an act of provokinging the criminal facts, and is not detrimental to the national revenue, and the execution of the sentence shall be suspended for three years from the date when the judgment becomes final and conclusive under Article 62 of the Criminal Act, and the seizure of the order shall

The final appeal by the prosecutor that the sentencing of the defendant is too minor is clear in light of the above recognition of the fact that the principal offender is no longer well-grounded and that the fact that the defendant's above-mentioned facts were given up in the process of conspiracy, and thus, cannot be a crime, is not adopted.

Of the facts charged in this case

Between July 4, 1960 and July 6, 1960, the defendant purchased USD 10,000,000,000 from 10,000,0000,000 from 1,250 to 6,0000,000,0000 from 1,250,000 to 6,000,000,000,000 to 1,250,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,000,00,000,000,00,000,00,000,00

In fact, in light of the records, this fact can be recognized in light of the records, but with respect to this fact, since the above explanation was given that the punishment was repealed due to the amendment or repeal of the law after the crime, a judgment of acquittal shall be rendered in accordance with Article 326 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

The two judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Ma-won Na-won