According to the reasoning of the judgment below, under Article 34 of the Enforcement Decree of the Foreign Exchange Control Act, the defendants can export or import means of payment as permitted, authorized, approved, certified, or reported under Article 325 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and as to those who export or import in violation of the above provision, Article 35 of the same Act shall apply to the acts of the defendants who are residents of the Republic of Korea seeking to import Japanese currency of this case. Thus, it is interpreted that Article 137 and Article 181 of the Customs Act cannot be applied to the acts of foreign means of payment under the Foreign Exchange Control Act, and therefore, Article 6 (4) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes cannot be applied to the defendants who are residents of the Republic of Korea or non-residents, and Article 34 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act is interpreted as a violation of the above Act on the basis that the facts charged in this case against the defendants are interpreted as not a crime under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

In addition, even if the Tariff Schedules under Article 7 (1) of the Customs Act list, tariff classification No. 4907, bank notes, etc. are listed, it cannot be said that the Japanese currency of this case is subject to the Customs Act. As seen above, import and export of foreign means of payment should be regulated in accordance with the Foreign Exchange Control Act. If the defendants' acts such as the facts charged in this case are in a so-called commercial concurrent relationship that conflict with both the Customs Act and the Foreign Exchange Control Act, it cannot be deemed that the defendants' acts such as the facts charged in this case are in a commercial concurrent relationship. At the time of the Supreme Court Decision 4290 Decided November 1, 1957, where the Foreign Exchange Control Act was enacted, the former Customs Act has not yet been enacted, and only the former Customs Act has been regulating the export and import of foreign means of payment, and it cannot be said that the judgment of the court below cannot be cited as materials for the same case after the enactment of the Foreign Exchange Control Act, and the Supreme Court Decision 2008Do9709 delivered on August 197.

Therefore, this appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)