The part against the Defendants is reversed in entirety.

Defendant

C Imprisonment with prison labor for one year, and Defendant D.

A. Although the amount of commission received by the Defendants on the grounds of erroneous determination of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the court below's omitted judgment is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles as to additional collection.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants on unreasonable sentencing (2 years of suspended execution, community service 120 hours, Defendant D: 10 months of suspended execution on the one-year imprisonment, 2 years of suspended execution on the one-year imprisonment, 120 hours of community service, 120 hours of community service, etc.) is too unfas

2. Judgment on the prosecutor's misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The subject matter of confiscation and collection stipulated in Article 30 of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act refers to foreign exchange and other means of payment acquired by the offender through the pertinent act. This purport is to confiscate or collect foreign exchange, etc. acquired by the offender due to the act regulated by the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act, and the above "acquisition" refers to the time it has been acquired as a result of the relevant criminal act.

(Supreme Court Decision 81Do2930 Decided March 9, 1982, and Supreme Court Decision 2013Do4721 Decided July 12, 2013, etc.).The confiscation and additional collection under the Foreign Exchange Control Act, unlike the case of the general criminal law, are deemed to have the character of punitive sanctions against the crime. Therefore, in case where multiple persons conspired to commit an offense, if it is impossible to confiscate foreign exchange, etc. subject to confiscation, it is necessary to order all offenders to additionally collect all the value of foreign exchange, etc. acquired by them.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 95Do2002, May 21, 1998; Supreme Court Decision 2005Do7299, Feb. 22, 2005). Whether a person is subject to confiscation, additional collection, or an amount of additional collection need not require strict certification.

(See Supreme Court Decision 91Do3346 delivered on June 22, 1993, etc.). B.

Judgment

The defendant C sells the Hong Kong dollars at the time of investigation by the prosecution.