beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.08.11 2017노1713

외국환거래법위반

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of legal principles as to collection and improper sentencing)

A. Although the Defendant committed the instant crime in collusion with E, after the business relationship was broken down, E did not distribute 50% of the profits acquired as a commission, and did not return part of the principal invested in the initial fund.

Even if the defendant has interests in foreign exchange, etc. acquired through the crime of this case

Even if 363,187,604 won is much less than 363,187,604 won.

(b)the sentence sentenced by the first instance court (the imprisonment of 10 months, the additional collection of 363,187,604 Won) is too unreasonable;

2. Determination

A. (1) Determination of the misapprehension of the legal principles as to additional collection (1) as to the confiscation and additional collection under the former Foreign Exchange Management Act (repealed by Act No. 5550 of September 16, 1998) has the nature of punitive sanctions as to the crime, unlike the case of the general criminal law.

As such, where multiple persons commit an offense in collusion, if it is impossible to confiscate foreign exchange and other securities, precious metals, real estate, and means of domestic payment subject to confiscation, it shall be ordered to collect the whole amount of foreign exchange acquired from all offenders. If one of them has paid the full amount of the surcharge, the other person shall be exempted from the execution of the surcharge, but if it has not been paid even if it is part of it, each offender shall not be exempted from the execution of the surcharge. This shall also apply to confiscation and additional collection under the Foreign Exchange Act newly enacted in lieu of the abolition of the former Foreign Exchange Management Act (Supreme Court Decision 2005Do7299 Decided February 22, 2005). (2) According to evidence duly adopted and investigated by the first instance court, the defendant planned to exchange the initial funds of KRW 1 billion with E and the same business around September 20, 2015 and planned to exchange the funds to foreign countries by means of exchange, F, G, H, etc. < Amended by Act No. 13320, Feb. 22, 2005>