(b) Whether the brokerage fee (fee) claim of the imported goods falls under the category of claims covered by Article 23 of the Foreign Exchange Control Act and Article 33 of the Enforcement Decree thereof;

(c) Whether or not the brokerage or intermediation of international trades, and the acquisition of foreign currency as remuneration therefor, is illegal;

B. Under the Foreign Exchange Control Act, a claim is a personal claim whose contents are the performance of monetary payment, and does not fall under the means of payment and securities, and its scope is extremely narrow compared to a claim under the Civil Act in that it is a monetary claim. In addition, the restriction, prohibition and cancellation thereof should be strictly interpreted in terms of the legislative intent of the Foreign Exchange Control Act and the private economic aspect of freedom of contract. Thus, the provisions of Article 33(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Foreign Exchange Control Act are not an example provision, but an intermediary fee arising from the import of the newly introduced fertilizer, and its claim for remuneration shall not be included in the Foreign Exchange Control Act and Article 23 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act and Article 33 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

C. In a general commercial transaction, the payment of a certain amount of commission or remuneration for the good offices and brokerage belongs to the commercial practice, which is not different in international trade, and if the amount of brokerage commission is not subject to the restriction or prohibition under the Foreign Exchange Control Act, it can be received by the normal settlement method such as the receipt outside the trade, and therefore, it cannot be said that the acquisition itself of the above claim is illegal.

All of the appeals by the prosecutor against the defendant and the defendant 2 are dismissed.

1. As to the prosecutor’s ground of appeal

1. Of the grounds of appeal No. 1, Defendant 1’s violation of Articles 35 and 23 subparag. 2 of the Foreign Exchange Control Act

The gist of the prosecutor's grounds of appeal on this part is that the court below misleads the facts against the rules of evidence and is inconsistent with the reasoning of the judgment. As stated in the judgment on Defendant 1's grounds of appeal, the violation of Article 35 and Article 23 subparagraph 2 of the Foreign Exchange Control Act among the facts charged is reversed according to the defendant's appeal. Thus, the decision of the court below on this part is unnecessary (However, although the amount which is not a brokerage commission is included, it is not possible to do so due to the written indictment, and it is not possible to decide by the court of final appeal as a single crime because a public prosecution is instituted for a single crime).

2. Ground of appeal No. 1 that evades corporate tax, etc.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that Defendant 1 was not guilty of 97.10 to 197.27 trillion won, and found that the total amount of 19.3 trillion won and 17.3 trillion won were not identical to that of 97.4 trillion won and 197.3 trillion won were not identical to the above facts charged, 17.4 trillion won and 97.3 trillion won were not identical to the above facts charged, 17.3 trillion won and 97.4 trillion won were not identical to the above facts charged, 197.3 trillion won and 97 trillion won were identical to the above facts charged, 197.3 trillion won and 97.4 trillion won were not identical to the above facts charged, 197 trillion won and 197.4 trillion won and 97 trillion won were identical to the above facts charged, 197.3 trillion won and 97 trillion won were not identical to the above facts charged, 27.4 trillion won and 97.3 trillion won were identical to the above facts charged

In the theory of the lawsuit, if the U.S. dollars deposited or received as a check by Defendant 1 as a broker fee is not more than 1,282,98 U.S. dollars in total as in the decision of the court below, it cannot be said that the defendant's total sum of the U.S. dollars in the decision of the court below (2) through (5) reaches 1,736,723 U.S. dollars in the so-called exchange deadline is more than the U.S. dollars deposited by Defendant 1 as a broker fee. In this regard, the judgment of the court below is obvious that there is an error of misconception of facts or a mistake of reasoning, but it is not possible to conclude that the U.S. dollars deposited by Defendant 1 as a broker fee in the U.S., and there is no data to recognize such facts in the case record, and therefore, it cannot be accepted as a single opinion. The arguments are without merit.

3. The second ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since Defendant 1 sent 30,00 U.S. dollars to Defendant 2 on August 19, 1975 at Amera or hotel located in New York, and Defendant 2 received them and delivered and received each bribe to arrange matters belonging to other public officials' duties by taking advantage of his position, and there is no evidence to prove the remainder, and the developments leading up to giving 2,000 U.S. dollars which the above 2,00 U.S. dollars were given and received by the agricultural cooperatives on December 12, 1974 as sellers, and there is no reason to believe that the above 1,700 U.S. dollars was insufficient from 0 U.S. dollars to 1,70 tons, and there was no reason to acknowledge that the 1,700 U.S. dollars and the 200 U.S. dollars were different from 185 U.S. dollars’s new evidence to 200 U.S. dollars’s new evidence to this effect.

2. As to Defendant 1’s ground of appeal

1. Ground of appeal No. 1

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below collected evidences from July 1973 to December 31, 1975 that Defendant 1 was a party to the occurrence of the claim between the non-resident and the non-resident without following the legal procedure (or by receiving checks) by receiving 1,282,98 US dollars from Stona Commercial Code, Story Commercial Code, etc. 14 times in total under the pretext of brokerage commission for the mediation of the import of salt, heavy stone, etc., introduced by the agricultural cooperative from July 1973 to December 31, 1975, and by receiving 1,282,98 US$42% from Stona Commercial Code, etc.

In order to ensure the stability of balance of payments and the efficient operation of foreign currency funds by managing foreign exchange and its transactions and other foreign transactions, the Foreign Exchange Control Act provides for the concentration of foreign exchange, the restriction and prohibition on foreign exchange transactions and other foreign transactions, and it provides for the exemption from such restriction and prohibition. Article 23 of the Foreign Exchange Control Act prohibits a resident or a non-resident from becoming a party to the occurrence, alteration, repayment, extinction, direct or indirect transfer or other disposition of the "claim between a resident and a non-resident" and Article 33 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Foreign Exchange Control Act, which is the Presidential Decree pursuant to this delegation, prohibits a resident or a non-resident from becoming a party to the occurrence, etc. of a claim between a resident and a non-resident due to a loan, deposit, trust, guarantee, gift, lease or sale, except for cases where the non-resident becomes a party to the occurrence, etc. of a claim between a resident and a non-resident (Article 23 (2) 2 and 3 of the Foreign Exchange Control Act separately provided for the same Act) or a non-resident.

In light of the foregoing, the scope of claims under the Foreign Exchange Control Act is very narrow compared to claims under the Civil Act in that they are personal claims that are subject to performance of monetary payment, and they do not correspond to means of payment and securities, and in that they are monetary claims, the restriction, prohibition and cancellation thereof requires strict interpretation in terms of the legislative intent of the Foreign Exchange Control Act and the private economic aspect of freedom of contract. Therefore, Article 33 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Foreign Exchange Control Act that the above loans, deposits, trust, guarantee, gift, lease, or sale of foreign currency claims between residents and non-residents can be a party to claims, such as the occurrence of claims between residents or between residents and non-residents, shall not be included in such restriction or prohibition, not in listed provisions. This is because the above Article 33 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Foreign Exchange Control Act provides that claims other than those of loans, deposits, trust, guarantee, gift, sale and purchase shall be excluded from this restriction or prohibition. This is because the Foreign Exchange Control Act regulates the principle of freedom of contract, foreign exchange Control Act, and other foreign exchange transactions for the purpose.

The claim confirmed by the court below, on the basis of the import of fertilizer, is not always clear whether it is a broker fee, a bond, or a deposit claim in a financial institution which is paid with a brokerage fee, but if it is the deposit claim in the statement that it is clear that it is a deposit fee, and if it is the deposit claim in the statement that it was paid with a brokerage fee, and if it is the deposit claim in the statement that it was deposited with a brokerage commission, even if it was made at the time of the original adjudication, it is shown to the same person that the company paid the brokerage fee and deposited it, as well as there is no evidence to confirm the fact that it was again deposited with a commission in the light of the fact that it was paid with a commission, and it is not a realistic payment and receipt of the brokerage commission and it is not a receipt and a deposit. However, it is apparent that this claim is still a brokerage fee.

Therefore, the lower court, which is a fact-finding court, should first have deliberated on the nature of the claim, but has never become a party to the occurrence of the claim, and has never become a party to the claim under the Foreign Exchange Control Act, and there is no way to escape criticism that there was no reason to do so.

Meanwhile, in a general commercial transaction, the payment of a certain amount of commission or remuneration to the mediation and brokerage belongs to the commercial practice, and if the amount of brokerage commission, etc. is not subject to the restriction or prohibition under the Foreign Exchange Control Act, it shall be possible to receive it by the normal settlement method such as the receipt outside the trade. Thus, it shall not be said that the acquisition of bonds itself is erroneous, regardless of the fact that the foreign currency acquired so was not collected as soon as possible, because it did not collect it as possible.

Since there was a decision that the remuneration claim shall not be included in the claim that is prohibited from the occurrence, change, repayment, extinction, etc. under the Foreign Exchange Control Act, and the foreign currency that is paid with this remuneration claim or remuneration can be received through the normal settlement method. Therefore, the court below should have examined this issue in light of the fact that the court below failed to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

Therefore, the ground of appeal pointing out the misapprehension of the legal principles of Article 23 of the Foreign Exchange Control Act is justified.

2. Ground of appeal Nos. 2 and 3

When collecting evidence at the time of the original trial based on the records, the fact that the defendant received payment from a resident in the Republic of Korea from the transfer of property located in a foreign country (1) such as the time of original trial (2) between October 1, 1973 and December 31, 1975, that the defendant arranged the import of fertilizers from agricultural cooperatives, arranged them for the import of agricultural cooperatives, and received the total sum of 1,282,98 US dollars 42% from the commission, but without any income, the fact that the defendant evaded corporate tax, defense, business tax, etc. by fraud such as omission of entry without income, etc. and other unlawful methods (3) and from August 14, 1974 to December 16, 1975 that the defendant made a false statement from the Seoul District Court or made a false statement from the Seoul District Court to the prosecutor's 41,200,000 won in total to the defendant 2 for the above fact-finding without any reason to recognize the defendant's reputation or dignity of the defendant.

3. As to Defendant 2’s grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

If evidence of the court below was collected based on the case records, the court below's decision to the effect that if the defendant entrusted the import brokerage of the agricultural cooperatives in 1974 and 1975 for the year of 1974 and the year of 1975, and considered the convenience of other business, the defendant may ask the above Minister and the non-indicted 2 to make a solicitation for such solicitation at the request of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, the non-indicted 1 or the head of the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation, etc. at that time, and it can be acknowledged that the above Minister and the non-indicted 2 have received the total amount of 41,200,000 won from August 14, 1974 to December 16, 1975, and the public official received the bribe in relation to the arrangement of matters belonging to the duties of other public officials by taking advantage of his status. Thus, the court below's decision to the same purport is just and there

Nor is there any reason to conclude that there is no room for solicitation merely because of the fact that the defendant's receipt of money from the defendant 1 as part of the interest and principal of a monetary lending relationship was made. However, if the receipt of money between the defendant, etc. is due to the lending and borrowing relationship, there should be no evidence to agree with the principal and interest and the due date of payment, etc., even though the defendants did not explain it by themselves, and it is difficult to accept that money was received in total of 41,200,000 won from August 14, 1974 to December 16, 1975 from before and after 17 times as well as from August 14, 1974 to December 16, 1975, it cannot be said that the money transaction between the defendant, etc. was a regular payment of interest.

There is no reason to discuss the appeal.

4. Ultimately, Defendant 1’s ground of appeal is well-grounded, and the remainder of the grounds of appeal are without merit, but multiple facts constituting concurrent crimes are prosecuted against the same defendant. Thus, the part of the judgment of the court below pertaining to Defendant 1 is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court, and the prosecutor’s appeal against the defendant and the appeal by Defendant 2 are dismissed without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)