[2] Where a domestic company deposits the export price in a confidential deposit account opened in the name of a foreign floating company and then transfers the export price to an account held in the name of a foreign defendant, the case holding that the above act constitutes an element of a crime of property concealment under Article 4 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, considering that a deposit contract in the name of a foreign floating company

[3] The meaning of "an act of pretending criminal proceeds, etc." under Article 3 (1) 1 of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment, which provides for a crime of concealment and concealment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment

[4] The case holding that in case where the criminal proceeds from the crime of capital flight are a property that shall be brought into the Republic of Korea under the law, and where the funds concealed in the account under the name of a foreign defendant among the investigation into the crime of capital flight are remitted as the export proceeds to the domestic company's account in the name of the domestic company, it cannot be deemed that the defendant had a criminal intent as to the fictitious act of criminal proceeds from the crime under Article 3 (1) 1 of the Act on Regulation

1. As to the violation of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act

A. Ground of appeal No.1

The statute of limitations for a single comprehensive crime, such as the crime of violating the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act, is an established opinion of the party member that runs from the time when the last crime was committed (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do2939, Oct. 11, 2002, etc.). On the contrary, the statute of limitations for a single comprehensive crime shall be calculated from the time when the first crime was committed, or the statute of limitations for each individual crime constituting a single comprehensive crime should be run, is merely an independent opinion, and thus, cannot be accepted.

B. Ground of appeal Nos. 2 and 3

The court below held that the defendant's act of opening a deposit account in Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong, established pursuant to the laws and regulations of Hong Kong, opened a bank account in Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong, under the name of Hong Kong, and deposit the export price of the non-indicted 1 corporation's company in its account in its own country, shall be deemed to be the act of the defendant or the non-indicted 1 corporation even if the above deposit contract of ○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ Ba, a non-resident under the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act, was done formally between Hong Kong and another non-resident, even if the above deposit contract of ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ Ba was an obvious resident under the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act. On the other hand, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged in the grounds for appeal.

C. Ground of appeal No. 4

In light of the relevant laws and regulations, the court below is just in rejecting the defendant's assertion that only deposit transactions of US$ 50,000 or more per case are subject to reporting under the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act, among the facts charged against the violation of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act, and it is difficult to draw up an interpretation as alleged above by the defendant even if it is based on the legislative purport of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act, Article 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act, and Article 12 (1) of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act, and Article 7-11 (3) of the

2. As to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (property flight abroad)

A. Ground of appeal No. 5

In the facts charged of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter "property flight abroad") only state "in violation of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act" and the specific violation provision was not explicitly stated, as the grounds of appeal are pointed out. However, considering the facts charged and the applicable provisions of the Act and the process of deliberation, the violation of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act, which included in the facts charged of the capital flight abroad, can be specified by the defendant as stated in the judgment of the court below, as it did not report to the head of the designated foreign exchange bank, that the defendant's act of purchasing the death and foreign currency deposit transaction in Hong Kong, which is a non-resident, and acquiring the right to real estate located in China, violates Article 18 (1) of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there was a substantial disadvantage to the defendant's exercise of his/her right to defense. Accordingly, even if the above facts charged did not specifically state what provisions of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act are violated, the prosecution is invalid or the judgment was affected thereby. The appeal on the legality of the indictment cannot be

Article 4(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter “Special Economic Crimes Act”) provides that “When a person moves property of the Republic of Korea or a citizen of the Republic of Korea to a foreign country or moves property to a foreign country in violation of the Acts and subordinate statutes, and benefits or disposes of the property to be brought to the foreign country, he/she shall bring property into the Republic of Korea” means the property of the Republic of Korea or a citizen of the Republic of Korea who bears the obligation of a resident to bring property into the Republic of Korea under the above Acts and subordinate statutes (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do3516, Oct. 10, 2003). Therefore, on the premise that “property to be brought to the Republic of Korea” referred to in the above provision means only the property of the Republic of Korea, and on this premise, the appeal that

In addition, the argument in the grounds of appeal that the fact of violation of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act, contained in the facts constituting the crime of foreign capital flight, is inconsistent with the facts of the crime of violation of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act is nothing more than a single opinion. The decision of the court below to the same purport is justifiable, and therefore, the argument of

B. Ground of appeal Nos. 6 and 7

Article 4(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes provides that "the concealment of property" means making it impossible or difficult to detect any property, and includes not only cases where the location of property is unknown but also cases where the ownership of property is unclear (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do7354, May 13, 2005).

In light of the above legal principles and the records, the judgment of the court below that the act of the defendant's act of withdrawing USD 1 million out of the export price of the non-indicted 1 ○○○ Product Industries Co., Ltd. that deposited in the account under the name of ○○○○ ○○ Deposit, and depositing it in the account in the name of the defendant established in the Hong Kong Hong Kong Life and Injury constitutes an element of the crime of capital flight. There is no violation of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the elements

In addition, we affirm the judgment below to the effect that the act of depositing the export price of the non-indicted 1 corporation in the account under the name of ○○ ○○ Trassan does not constitute the crime of capital flight, and subsequently, the act of transferring the export price of the non-indicted 1 corporation from the account under the name of ○ ○ ○○ Masive Lease to the above account under the name of the defendant constitutes the crime of capital flight.

The ground of appeal on this part is without merit.

C. Ground of appeal Nos. 8 and 9

In order to institute a public prosecution against the escape of the pertinent property from overseas, a separate public prosecution should be instituted against the violation of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act against the violation of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act, which is included in the facts charged, or the violation of the said Foreign Exchange Transactions Act shall be punished under the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act by itself. Thus, the ground of appeal that the crime of escape from overseas property of this case shall be deemed to be an act of non-criminal ex post facto action against the above violation of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act is nothing more

In light of the records, the court below is just in holding that the crime of capital flight of this case does not constitute an act of non-permanent ex post facto violation of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act on the grounds as stated in its holding, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the relevant legal principles as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. All appeals are without merit.

3. As to the violation of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment

The facts charged of violation of the Act on the Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment (hereinafter “Criminal Proceeds Regulation Act”) are as follows: “Defendant is willing to remit criminal proceeds, which are property flighted overseas, such as the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime.”

However, it is difficult to accept the judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

Article 3(1)1 of the Criminal Proceeds Regulation Act punishs "a person who disguises the fact about the acquisition or disposition of criminal proceeds, etc.". The term "the act of pretending criminal proceeds, etc." refers to the act of disguisedizing the acquisition or disposition of criminal proceeds, etc. or the reversion of criminal proceeds, etc., as if there exist no existing facts.

However, according to the records, the Defendant concealed USD 1,00,00 from among the export proceeds of Nonindicted 1 ○○ Product Industries Co., Ltd. by committing the instant crime of capital flight to the account in the name of the Defendant established in Hong Kong. However, during the instant investigation process, upon being investigated into the suspicion of capital flight, all of the balance of the funds deposited in the above Defendant’s account was withdrawn, and transferred them to the account in the name of Nonindicted 1 ○○ Product Industries Co., Ltd. as stated in the above facts charged, and it was revealed to the investigation agency that the circumstances leading up to the deposit of the funds and the transfer of them to the domestic account in the name of Nonindicted 1 ○○ Product Industries were true and the materials related thereto were submitted. As such, it is evident that the criminal proceeds of the instant crime of capital flight were originally carried into the Republic of Korea as the export proceeds of Nonindicted 1 ○ Product Industries Co., Ltd., and should be attributed to Nonindicted 1 ○ Product Industries, and it cannot be seen that there was the most criminal cause or the criminal proceeds accrued before and after the aforementioned domestic crime.

In addition, according to the records, the reason why the defendant brought the criminal proceeds of the crime of capital flight of this case into the Republic of Korea during the investigation is not against the criminal facts of capital flight of this case or the criminal proceeds, but because it was judged that if the defendant brought the criminal proceeds of capital flight of this case into the Republic of Korea after the fact, the criminal facts of capital flight of this case or the criminal proceeds would have been concealed, it would have been judged that the defendant would have been capable of exceeding the criminal charges of capital flight of this case or receiving a prior action. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the defendant temporarily denied the criminal charges of capital flight of this case on the ground that he brought criminal proceeds into the Republic of Korea from the investigative agency

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of violating the Criminal Proceeds Regulation Act is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the elements of the most serious act such as criminal proceeds under Article 3 (1) 1 of the Criminal Proceeds Regulation Act and its criminal intent, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below which violated the Criminal Proceeds Regulation Act should be reversed, and the court below has maintained the judgment of the court of first instance which sentenced one punishment to the defendant by considering each of the crimes in the judgment as substantive concurrent crimes. Thus, the judgment of the court below should be reversed

4. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal as to the violation of the Regulation of Criminal Proceeds Concealment Act, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is 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 Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)